Abstract
Background:
Obese breast cancer survivors (BCSs) are impacted by diminished quality of life (QOL), multiple comorbid conditions, and poor disease outcomes. Despite national guidelines recommending a healthy weight to improve QOL and outcomes posttreatment, support and education are not routinely provided to BCSs in primary care. To fill this gap, we assessed perceptions of primary care received among BCSs by weight status.
Methods:
Cross-sectional surveys were administered to early-stage BCSs (N = 188) from 2 New Jersey cancer centers between May 2012 and July 2013. Sociodemographics, medical history, functional health status, perceived satisfaction with one’s primary care provider (PCP), and PCP involvement in follow-up care were assessed.
Results:
In total, 82% of overweight BCSs and 30% of obese BCSs reported not being told by their doctor that they were overweight or obese, despite these conditions being highly prevalent (35% and 35%, respectively). Obese BCSs were more likely than healthy weight BCSs to be African American, have a higher comorbidity score, poorer functional health, and greater satisfaction with their PCPs.
Conclusion:
The PCP–patient encounter may represent an opportunity for PCPs to correct misperceptions and promote weight reduction efforts among BCSs, thus improving QOL and disease outcomes.
Keywords: breast cancer survivors, obesity, primary care, perceptions of care
Introduction
Breast cancer is the most common invasive cancer among women in developed countries and is the second most common cause of cancer death among women in the United States.1,2 The high incidence of breast cancer coupled with diagnostic and treatment advances have led to over 2.7 million breast cancer survivors (BCSs) in the United States.3 Approximately 90% of BCSs are alive 5 years postdiagnosis.3 Survivors are at increased risk of recurrence, secondary cancers, late effects of treatments, and comorbid conditions which may have a significant impact on their physical health, quality of life (QOL), and long-term outcomes.4
Obesity is a major risk factor for breast cancer recurrence and morbidity in both pre- and postmenopausal women.5–9 Obese women diagnosed with breast cancer are 35% more likely than normal weight women to die of their cancer and 41% more likely to die of any cause.10 Approximately 70% of women are overweight at the time of their breast cancer diagnosis, and additional weight gain often results from the standard treatment regimens.11 The link between obesity and cancer is so significant that the National Comprehensive Cancer Network survivorship guidelines recommended an active lifestyle and an ideal body weight (body mass index [BMI] 20-25 kg/m2) for optimal health and the American Cancer Society cites maintaining a healthy weight throughout the life as a key recommendation for the prevention of cancer.2,12
Posttreatment survivorship management that includes both follow-up care and health promotion is essential for BCSs.13 With over 14 million cancer survivors in the United States today, projected to grow to more than 18 million by 2022, primary care providers (PCPs) play an instrumental role across the continuum of cancer care, from screening to treatment to survivorship.14 Indeed, the existing literature shows that survivors are more likely to receive care from their PCPs than other providers.15 In recognition of the importance of PCPs in the continuum of cancer care, the American Society of Clinical Oncology published guidelines recommending that PCPs take greater responsibility for survivorship care.16 Long-term, comprehensive survivorship care should include ongoing discussions about care planning, coping skills, and preventive health behavior to manage long-term risks associated with being a cancer survivor.17 Yet, research have consistently shown that BCSs have a number of unmet needs and feel that PCPs do not adequately address their concerns related to weight gain and body image.17–21 Little is known about how weight status impacts BCS’ perceptions of care delivered by PCPs. Therefore, we conducted this study among a cohort of BCSs to examine satisfaction with care delivered by PCPs and their involvement in follow-up care, by weight status. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a potential to leverage opportunities in the primary care setting to identify obese BCSs and provide referral or intervention for weight management.
Materials and Methods
Study Participants
This is a secondary analysis of data collected from a cross-sectional survey of 325 early-stage (I or II) breast and prostate cancer survivors.22 A total of 213 early-stage (I or II), English-speaking BCSs were recruited from May 2012 to June 2013 from 2 cancer centers (1 academic and 1 community) that were part of the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey’s Network of affiliated hospitals. Of the 213 participants, 25 in total were excluded because sample sizes were too small to meaningfully compare other groups in the models. Reasons for exclusion included being less than 2 years postactive cancer treatment (excluding hormonal maintenance therapies) at the point of recruitment (n = 9), being underweight (n = 4), and not racially identifying as either African American/black or caucasian/white (n = 12). A total of 188 cases were included in the analysis.
The Institutional Review Board of the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School approved this study, and written informed consent was received from all participants. Patients were approached about the study at the time of a follow-up visit or through identification from an on-site patient registry. Patients received a survey, consent form, and a letter from the study principal investigator that described the study. Reminders were sent at 2 weeks and 1 month. Those who did not return completed surveys were considered refusals. Response rates for the sites ranged from 20% to 85% with an average of 60%. Sites that used registries only reported lower response rates (20% and 61%) in contrast with the other recruitment method (77% and 85%). The written survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Measures
The survey ascertained sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, perceived health status, patient satisfaction with primary care, and PCP involvement in follow-up care. The Cognitive-Social Health Information Processing model was used to guide the development of the survey instrument and evaluate how cognitive–affective, patient support, and demographic factors affect how survivors use PCPs for follow-up care.23,24
Main independent variable
Body mass index Status
BMI was calculated using self-reported measures for height and weight. BMI was divided into 3 categories based on definitions provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): healthy weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (>30.0 kg/m2).25
Outcome variables
Patient satisfaction with medical care
The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short-Form (PSQ-18) was utilized to asses 7 aspects of satisfaction with care from their PCPs with no reference to a specific time frame or visit.26 Additionally, to assess satisfaction with PCP-based follow-up care, items from the Follow-Up Care Use among Survivors (FOCUS) survey were used.27–29
Patient perception of care Processes
The Components of Primary Care Instrument assessed BCS’ perceptions of their receipt of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) constructs of comprehensive care, coordination of care, and personal relationship over time.30–32
Patient characteristics
Sociodemographics
Sociodemographic items included age, gender, race/ethnicity (white vs black and/or African American), educational attainment (high school, some college, 4-year college, or masters/graduate school), employment status (full-time, part-time, not employed, and retired), and marital status (married/living with partner vs not married).
Medical history
Participants reported whether they had been told by a doctor or health professional that they had any of a number of health conditions. Disease burden and comorbidities were measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index and supplemented with a list of additional late and long-term effects commonly experienced by long-term cancer survivors (eg, high blood pressure and depressive disorders).33 Length of time since treatment was assessed in the following phases posttreatment: 2 to 5, 6 to 10, or 10+ years. Type of treatment site (academic vs community) was also noted.
Perceived health status
The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12 (SF-12) Health Survey with standard (4 weeks) recall was utilized to measure perceived functional health status and health-related QOL (HRQOL).34,35 Two summary scores, physical component summary (PCS) score and mental component summary score, were constructed.
Statistical Analysis
Means and standard deviations (SDs) or frequencies were used to summarize survivor demographics, functional health status, and perceptions of care. Percentages summarized the level of satisfaction (with care and PCP involvement in follow-up care) among those who were healthy weight versus overweight or obese. Logistic regression analyses assessed the association of BMI status with patient satisfaction with primary care and with PCPs involvement in follow-up care. Backward stepwise selection identified control variables (ie, race and comorbidity) that had statistically significant effects on the outcome variables. Confirmatory analyses estimated the association of BMI status with the outcome, controlling for race and comorbidity. Statistical significance was assessed at an α of .05. The analysis was carried out in SAS version 9.3.
Results
Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the participants, overall and by weight status. Most participants were white, married, had some college or higher education, retired or unemployed, from an academic site, and 2 to 5 years posttreatment, and the average age of our sample was 61 years (SD = 10.5). This study included a high prevalence of overweight (35%) and obese (35%) female BCSs. Yet, 82% of overweight BCSs and 30% of obese BCSs reported never being told by a doctor or health professional that they were overweight or obese. The average Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 2.30 (SD = 1.7), and 18% of the sample reported that a doctor told her she had depressive disorder (including depression, major depression, dysthymia, or minor depression). Significantly more obese than healthy weight BCSs had been told by a doctor or health professional that they had high blood pressure (56% vs 25%, P = .0007), diabetes (24% vs 2%, P = .006), and osteoporosis (25% vs 5%, P = .004).
Table 1.
Characteristics of Study Population: Overall and by Weight Status.
| Variable | Categories | Overall (n = 188) | Healthy Weight (n = 56) | Overweight (n = 66) | Obese (n = 66) | P Value, Healthy vs Overweight | P value, Healthy vs Obese | P Value, Overweight vs Obese | P Value, Healthy vs Overweight vs Obese |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) or n (%) | |||||||||
| Age | 61 (10.5) | 59 (10.0) | 65 (10.0) | 60 (10.0) | .008 | .43 | .007 | <.0001 | |
| Married | 129 (67%) | 39 (70%) | 46 (70%) | 41 (62%) | .045 | .75 | .045 | .05 | |
| Education | High school | 48 (26%) | 14 (25%) | 17 (26%) | 17 (26%) | .61 | .27 | .16 | .30 |
| Some college | 63 (33%) | 15 (27%) | 20 (31%) | 27 (41%) | |||||
| 4-Year degree | 37 (19%) | 13 (23%) | 9 (14%) | 13 (20%) | |||||
| Masters/graduate school | 42 (22%) | 14 (25%) | 19 (29%) | 9 (14%) | |||||
| Racea | White | 164 (86%) | 53 (95%) | 59 (89%) | 49 (74%) | .30 | .006 | .03 | .003 |
| African American/black | 28 (14%) | 3 (5%) | 7 (11%) | 17 (26%) | |||||
| Employment status | Full time | 68 (36%) | 24 (43%) | 20 (30%) | 23 (35%) | .04 | .38 | .65 | .19 |
| Part time | 23 (12%) | 10 (18%) | 5 (8%) | 8 (12%) | |||||
| Not employed | 28 (15%) | 4 (7%) | 14 (21%) | 10 (15%) | |||||
| Retired | 73 (37%) | 18 (32%) | 27 (41%) | 25 (38%) | |||||
| Treatment site | Academic | 154 (81%) | 48 (86%) | 49 (74%) | 55 (83%) | .12 | .72 | .20 | .23 |
| Community | 38 (19%) | 8 (14%) | 17 (26%) | 11 (17%) | |||||
| Years since cancer treatment | Early (2-5 years) | 103 (54%) | 32 (57%) | 31 (48%) | 37 (56%) | .03 | .93 | .04 | .02 |
| Mid (6-10 years) | 60 (32%) | 20 (36%) | 16 (25%) | 23 (35%) | |||||
| Long (10+ years) | 27 (14%) | 4 (7%) | 17 (27%) | 6 (9%) | |||||
| Charlson comorbiditya | 2.30 (1.70) | 1.79 (1.29) | 2.45 (1.80) | 2.59 (1.83) | .03 | .009 | .64 | .009 | |
| Obesityb | 58 (31%) | 0 (0%) | 12 (18%) | 46 (70%) | .97 | .93 | <.0001 | <.0001 | |
| High blood pressurea,b | 77 (41%) | 14 (25%) | 26 (39%) | 37 (56%) | .09 | .0007 | .056 | .002 | |
| Diabetesa,b | 23 (12%) | 1 (2%) | 6 (9%) | 16 (24%) | .06 | .006 | .08 | .001 | |
| Prescribed blood thinnersb | 16 (9%) | 1 (2%) | 9 (14%) | 6 (9%) | .04 | .12 | .41 | .06 | |
| Osteoporosisa,b | 36 (19%) | 14 (25%) | 19 (29%) | 3 (5%) | .64 | .004 | .001 | .0008 | |
| Depressive disorderb | 34 (18%) | 10 (18%) | 10 (15%) | 14 (21%) | .69 | .64 | .37 | .66 | |
Abbreviations: BCSs, breast cancer survivors.
a Significant difference at P < .05 between healthy versus obese BCSs.
b Patient reported that a doctor or health professional told her that she had this.
Physical functioning as measured by the mean SF-12 PCS scale was 48.4, and the mean for mental functioning was 51.2. Functional health and well-being among BCSs by BMI status is presented in Table 2. In univariate analyses, obese BCSs were more likely than healthy weight BCSs to have a lower physical and mental component score. However, this association became nonsignificant after controlling for race and comorbidity.
Table 2.
Functional Health and Well-Being Among Breast Cancer Survivors by BMI Status.
| SF-12 | Mean (SD) | Unadjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) | Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)a |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical component score | |||
| Overall | 48.01 (10.56) | ||
| Healthy Weight | 51.34 (9.30) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Overweight | 47.84 (10.37) | 0.96 (0.93-1.00) | 0.98 (0.94-1.02) |
| Obese | 45.36 (11.11) | 0.94 (0.91-0.98)b | 0.96 (0.92-1.00) |
| Mental component score | |||
| Overall | 51.28 (9.58) | ||
| Healthy Weight | 53.12 (8.11) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Overweight | 51.73 (9.11) | 0.98 (0.94-1.02) | 0.99 (0.94-1.03) |
| Obese | 49.27 (10.86) | 0.96 (0.92-1.00)b | 0.97 (0.93-1.01) |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; BCSs, breast cancer survivors; SF, Short Form-12.
a Adjusted for race and comorbidity, reference category is healthy weight.
b Significant difference at P < .05 between healthy weight and obese BCSs.
Overall, BCSs had generally high levels of satisfaction with their PCPs (Table 3). Satisfaction did not vary by BMI status with the exception of the accessibility and convenience subscale, with obese BCSs reporting a higher mean score than healthy weight BCSs. Supplemental data from the FOCUS survey demonstrated similarly high levels of satisfaction among all BCSs, with no difference in BMI status (data not shown). Of 9 FOCUS questions, 7 received a response of 85% and above.
Table 3.
Breast Cancer Survivors’ Satisfaction With Primary Care by BMI Status.
| Overall | Healthy Weight (n = 56) | Overweight (n = 66) | Obese (n = 66) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted Odds ratio for Obese | |||||
| Mean (SD) | P Value, OR (95% CI)a | ||||
| PSQ-18 subscales | |||||
| Overall score | 3.92 (0.52) | 3.86 (0.53) | 3.90 (0.50) | 4.00 (0.53) | .10, 0.54 (0.26-1.13) |
| General satisfaction (items 3 and 17) | 3.94 (0.96) | 3.80 (0.96) | 3.95 (0.98) | 4.05 (0.94) | .17, 0.76 (0.50-1.13) |
| Technical quality (items 2, 4, 6, and 14) | 3.63 (0.49) | 3.55 (0.47) | 3.62 (0.55) | 3.71 (0.45) | .11, 0.49 (0.20-1.18) |
| Interpersonal manner (items 10 and 11) | 4.31 (0.71) | 4.34 (0.58) | 4.23 (0.79) | 4.35 (0.73) | .70, 0.89 (0.50-1.60) |
| Communication (items 1 and 13) | 4.14 (0.72) | 4.05 (0.65) | 4.10 (0.69) | 4.28 (0.78) | .08, 0.62 (0.36-1.07) |
| Financial aspects (items 5 and 7) | 3.91 (0.90) | 3.84 (0.90) | 4.01 (0.73) | 3.88 (1.04) | .76, 0.94 (0.63-1.40) |
| Time spent with doctor (items 12 and 15) | 3.92 (0.93) | 3.93 (0.94) | 3.79 (0.87) | 4.03 (0.97) | .42, 0.84 (0.56-1.28) |
| Accessibility and convenience (items 8, 9, 16, and 18) | 3.88 (0.72) | 3.73 (0.76) | 3.90 (0.69) | 3.98 (0.71) | .02,b 0.52 (0.29-0.91) |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; BCSs, breast cancer survivors; OR, odds ratio; PSQ, Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short-Form.
a Adjusted for race and comorbidity, reference category is healthy BMI.
b Significant difference at P < .05 between healthy weight and obese BCSs.
Figure 1 displays the PCMH mean satisfaction scores with P values from the corresponding logistic regression models, adjusting for race and comorbidity. Obese BCSs were significantly more likely to report satisfaction with PCPs in regard to comprehensive care (P = .02), coordination of care (P = .002), and personal relationship (P = .04) than healthy weight BCSs. An individual item in this instrument worth highlighting is the question “This doctor (PCP) knows whether or not I exercise, eat right, smoke or drink alcohol.” Obese BCSs were significantly more likely than healthy weight BCSs (98% vs 89%, P = .04) to agree with the statement, after adjusting for race and comorbidity.
Figure 1.
Satisfaction* with primary care clinician by body mass index (BMI) status. * indicates mean scores from the PCMH Survey; †, significant difference at P < .05 between healthy weight and obese BCSs in a multivariate model adjusted for race and comorbidity.
Discussion
The growing number of cancer survivors in the United States requires timely and active engagement by PCPs in cancer survivorship care and follow-up cancer coordination. In the United States, most early-stage BCSs receive cancer follow-up care from PCPs.36,37 The PCP-centered follow-up has been shown to be equivalent or superior to oncologist-centered follow-up in terms of recommended preventive care and outcomes among BCSs.38–40 Primary care visits may provide PCPs with opportunities to identify, educate, and intervene with obese BCSs who are at increased risk of poor clinical, functional, and psychosocial outcomes by focusing on the whole patient and providing guidance on risk-reducing behavioral modifications. This study aimed to examine BCS perceptions of primary care, by BMI status, to determine BCS satisfaction with their PCPs and potential receptivity to education and counseling offered during a primary care encounter.
In this study, BCSs reported high levels of satisfaction with PCP-provided care and, overall, satisfaction did not vary by weight status. Further, obese BCSs had enhanced perceptions of comprehensive care, coordination of care, and personal relationship with/from their PCPs than healthy weight BCSs. Our data build on previous research which has demonstrated that BCSs express higher satisfaction with follow-up and higher quality of noncancer-related health care from PCPs than follow-up by specialists.37,41,42 Of particular note, obese BCSs in our study were more likely than healthy weight BCSs to agree that their PCPs know whether they exercise, eat right, smoke, or drink alcohol. These data suggest that although PCPs may ask about major behavioral risk factors, it is unclear whether this line of inquiry is coupled with counseling obese BCSs about weight. In fact, our results suggest that most overweight (82%) and obese (30%) BCSs are not informed of their BMI status by their PCPs. Previous research has demonstrated that there is a high prevalence (65%) of unmet information needs related to health promotion among cancer survivors and nearly a third of survivors do not report health promotion discussions with their medical teams.28,29 Thus, opportunities exist is the primary care setting to offer behavioral risk factor counseling to BCS, particularly to those who are obese, in an effort to reduce risk of recurrence and poor clinical outcomes.
Existing literature has shown that excess weight and a higher number of comorbid conditions have been associated with poor functional ability, increased symptoms, declining overall general health, and QOL among cancer survivors.43–47 Among BCSs, high BMI has been associated with lower physical aspects of HRQOL and postdiagnosis weight gain has been associated with poorer HRQOL.48 Our data are consistent with these findings, showing that obese BCSs were more likely than healthy weight BCS to have diminished functional health (physical and mental) and a significant association between comorbid illnesses and BMI status. Prior studies have indicated a positive correlation between comorbid conditions and utilization of PCP services suggesting that obese BCSs with multiple comorbid conditions may be more avid consumers of primary care services.46 Thus, PCP visits may represent a teachable moment for PCPs to communicate and intervene with BCS, particularly those who are obese, not engaging in protective health behaviors (ie, physical activity), and who are dealing with competing illnesses in the face of late effects of cancer therapies.
This study has 4 limitations that should be considered in interpreting the findings. First, this is a cross-sectional design using a subsample of cancer survivors with a wide range in length of survivorship, and it is likely that perceptions of care may change over time. However, years out from treatment did not vary between obese and healthy weight BCSs. Second, due to small sample sizes of minority groups, this substudy was limited to comparisons between white/caucasian and African American/black cancer survivors; thus, studies of more racially diverse populations of survivors are needed. Third, the study relied on self-report and is not a direct measure of the quality of care provided by PCPs. Nonetheless, patients’ perceptions are important indicators of health care delivery. Self-reported height and weight were also used, yet self-reported height and weight data have been found to be valid for identifying relationships in epidemiological studies.49 Fourth, our study did not evaluate quantity or quality of PCP visits, a direct measure of obesity management or the perspective of patients about information preferences, especially those related to weight management. Despite the limitations, to our knowledge, this is the first study to quantify the perceptions of BCSs regarding PCP-related care by weight status. In future work, there is a need to explore informational needs and preferences surrounding weight in this population and to identify the concerns specific to obese BCSs to inform the development of targeted BCS educational materials.
Conclusion
Obese BCSs represent a population at increased risk of diminished functional status, multiple comorbidities, and poor clinical outcomes resulting from their cancer diagnosis and treatments as well as from their excess weight. National guidelines recommend cancer survivors maintain a healthy body weight to improve QOL and reduce the risk of recurrent and new cancer. The PCPs play an integral role in providing comprehensive survivorship care to BCSs, particularly to those who are obese or struggling with multiple comorbid conditions. Activating PCPs to provide support and education to increase patient adherence to cancer survivorship guidelines, particularly those related to weight management, may result in improved health outcomes, specifically QOL, and result in longer overall survival for BCSs.
Author Biographies
Allison Christian, Ed.D., received a B.A. in psychology from Douglass College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She then earned a M.A. and Ed.D. in health education from Teachers College, New York, NY. She completed a NIH-funded post-doctoral fellowship at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. Christian currently serves as an assistant professor in the department of Health Education & Behavioral Science at the Rutgers School of Public Health and a member of the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey.
Shawna V. Hudson, Ph.D., received her B.A. in Sociology from Rutgers College in New Brunswick, New Jersey. She subsequently received her M.A. and Ph.D. in Sociology and a graduate certificate in Women’s Studies from Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. She completed her post-doctoral training through a fellowship from the New Jersey Commission on Cancer Research. Dr. Hudson is an associate professor and associate director of research in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and a member of the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey.
Suzanne M. Miller, Ph.D., received a B.Sc. from McGill University in honors psychology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. She then earned a Ph.D. from the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, The Royal Bethlem and Maudsley Hospitals in clinical psychology. She currently serves as a professor and director of the psychosocial and behavioral medicine department in the Cancer Prevention and Control Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center/Temple Health. She is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania and the Departments of Medicine; Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Medicine; and the School of Public Health at Temple University.
Alicja Bator, M.P.H., received a B.A. in Science Technology and Society from New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ. She then earned a MPH in Biostatistics and Epidemiology from UMDNJ School of Public Health, Newark, NJ. Ms. Bator currently serves as a Research Teaching Specialist III in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Pamela A. Ohman-Strickland, Ph.D., received an AB in Mathematics at Bowdoin College in New Brunswick, ME. She subsequently received her MS and PhD at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. She currently serves as associate professor in the department of Biostatistics at the Rutgers School of Public Health, where she is also associate dean of the New Brunswick Campus.
Robert A. Somer, M.D., received his Doctorate of Medicine from the State University of New York Stony Brook School of Medicine, in Stony Brook, New York. He then trained at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania for Internship and Residency in Internal Medicine. He subsequently did his Fellowship in Medical Oncology and Hematology at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Currently, he is an associate professor of Medicine at the Cooper Medical School of Rowan University. He is the associate division head for clinical services in the Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology as well as the director of the clinical research program at MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper in Camden, New Jersey.
Jeanne Ferrante, M.D., M.P.H., received her M.D. From Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University and her M.P.H. from the Rutgers School of Public Health. She is currently an associate professor of Family Medicine and Community Health at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. She is the director of the New Jersey Primary Care Research Network.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Allison H. Christian was supported by a National Cancer Institute Supplement Grant (1R01 CA176838-01A1). Dr. Shawna V. Hudson (K01 CA131500, R03 CA154063) and Dr. Suzanne M. Miller (R01 CA158019, P30 CA06927) were supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute.
References
- 1. AICR/WCRF, Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. 2007, London, England: World Cancer Research Fund. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Kushi LH, Doyle C, McCullough M, et al. , American Cancer Society Guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention: reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical activity. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(1):30–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Ries L, Krapcho M, Stinchcomb D, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2005. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Demark-Wahnefried W, Aziz NM, Rowland JH, Pinto BM. Riding the crest of the teachable moment: promoting long-term health after the diagnosis of cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(24):5814–5830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Chlebowski RT, Aiello E, McTiernan A. Weight loss in breast cancer patient management. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(4):1128–1143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Majed B, Moreau T, Senouci K, Salmon RJ, Fourquet A, Asselain B. Is obesity an independent prognosis factor in woman breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111(2):329–342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Protani M, Coory M, Martin JH. Effect of obesity on survival of women with breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;123(3):627–635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Patterson RE, Cadmus LA, Emond JA, Pierce JP. Physical activity, diet, adiposity and female breast cancer prognosis: a review of the epidemiologic literature. Maturitas. 2010;66(1):5–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Denlinger CS, Carlson RW, Are M, et al. Survivorship: introduction and definition. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014;12(1):34–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Chan DS, Vieira AR, Aune D, et al. Body mass index and survival in women with breast cancer-systematic literature review and meta-analysis of 82 follow-up studies. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(10):1901–1914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Demark-Wahnefried W, Campbell KL, Hayes SC. Weight management and its role in breast cancer rehabilitation. Cancer. 2012;118(8 suppl):2277–287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Denlinger CS, Ligibel JA, Are M, et al. Survivorship: nutrition and weight management, Version 2.2014. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014;12(10):1396–1406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Bellizzi KM, Mustian KM, Bowen DJ, Resnick B, Miller SM. Aging in the context of cancer prevention and control: perspectives from behavioral medicine. Cancer. 2008;113(12 suppl):3479–3483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. de Moor JS, Mariotto AB, Parry C, et al. Cancer survivors in the United States: prevalence across the survivorship trajectory and implications for care. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(4):561–570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Pollack LA, Adamache W, Ryerson AB, Eheman CR, Richardson LC. Care of long-term cancer survivors: physicians seen by Medicare enrollees surviving longer than 5 years. Cancer. 2009;115(22):5284–5295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Khatcheressian JL1, Wolff AC, Smith TJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(31):5091–5097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Hewitt ME, Greenfield S, Stovall E. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition Washington, D.C: National Academies Press; 2006: xxv, 506 p. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Kantsiper M, McDonald EL, Geller G, Shockney L, Snyder C, Wolff AC. Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(suppl 2):S459–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Hurria A, Hudis C. Follow-up care of breast cancer survivors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003;48(1):89–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Partridge AH, Winer EP, Burstein HJ. Follow-up care of breast cancer survivors. Semin Oncol. 2003;30(6):817–825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Lewis L. Discussion and recommendations: addressing barriers in the management of cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs. 2006;29(2 suppl):91–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. O’Malley DM1, Hudson SV, Ohman-Strickland PA, et al. Follow-up care education and information: identifying cancer survivors in need of more guidance[published online December 20, 2014]. J Cancer Educ. 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Miller SM, Shoda Y, Hurley K. Applying cognitive-social theory to health-protective behavior: Breast self-examination in cancer screening. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(1):70–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Miller SMD., M.A., C-SHIP: A cognitive-social health information processing approach to cancer, in Perspectives in Behavioral Medicine, Krantz D., Editor. 1998, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: NJ; p. 219–244. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Executive summary of the clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(17):1855–1867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Marshall GN, Hays R. The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (PSQ-18). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 1994:7865. [Google Scholar]
- 27. Kent EE, Arora NK, Rowland JH, et al. Health information needs and health-related quality of life in a diverse population of long-term cancer survivors. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;89(2):345–352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Sohl SJ, Borowski LA, Kent EE, et al. Cancer survivors’ disclosure of complementary health approaches to physicians: the role of patient-centered communication. Cancer. 2015;121(6):900–907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Weaver KE, Foraker RE, Alfano CM, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors among long-term survivors of breast, prostate, colorectal, and gynecologic cancers: a gap in survivorship care? J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7(2):253–261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Flocke SA. Measuring attributes of primary care: development of a new instrument. J Fam Pract. 1997;45(1):64–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Flocke SA, Miller WL, Crabtree BF. Relationships between physician practice style, patient satisfaction, and attributes of primary care. J Fam Pract. 2002;51(10):835–840. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Flocke SA, Stange KC, Zyzanski SJ. The association of attributes of primary care with the delivery of clinical preventive services. Med Care. 1998;36(8 suppl):AS21–AS30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Ware J, Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Ware JE. How to Score Version 2 of the SF-12 Health Survey (With a Supplement Documenting Version 1). Lincoln, RI: Incorporated Q; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 36. Oeffinger KC, McCabe MS. Models for delivering survivorship care. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(32):5117–5124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Grunfeld E, Fitzpatrick R, Mant D, et al. Comparison of breast cancer patient satisfaction with follow-up in primary care versus specialist care: results from a randomized controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49(446):705–710. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Grunfeld E, Mant D, Yudkin P, et al. Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ. 1996;313(7058):665–669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Grunfeld E, Levine MN, Julian JA, et al. Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus specialist care. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(6):848–855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Snyder CF, Frick KD, Kantsiper ME, et al. Prevention, screening, and surveillance care for breast cancer survivors compared with controls: changes from 1998 to 2002. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(7):1054–1061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Earle CC, Neville BA. Under use of necessary care among cancer survivors. Cancer. 2004;101(8):1712–1719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Mao JJ, Bowman MA, Stricker CT, et al. Delivery of survivorship care by primary care physicians: the perspective of breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(6):933–938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Bellury L, Pett MA, Ellington L, Beck SL, Clark JC, Stein KD. The effect of aging and cancer on the symptom experience and physical function of elderly breast cancer survivors. Cancer. 2012;118(24):6171–6178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Bellury L, Ellington L, Beck SL, Pett MA, Clark J, Stein K. Older breast cancer survivors: can interaction analyses identify vulnerable subgroups? A report from the American Cancer Society Studies of Cancer Survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2013;40(4):325–336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Deimling GT, Arendt JA, Kypriotakis G, Bowman KF. Functioning of older, long-term cancer survivors: the role of cancer and comorbidities. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009:57(suppl 2):S289–S292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Kurtz ME, Kurtz JC, Given CW, Given BA. Utilization of services among elderly cancer patients--relationship to age, symptoms, physical functioning, comorbidity, and survival status. Ethn Dis. 2005;15(2 suppl 2):S17–S22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Yoon J, Malin JL, Tao ML, et al. Symptoms after breast cancer treatment: are they influenced by patient characteristics? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;108(2):153–165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Voskuil DW, van Nes JG, Junggeburt JM, van de Velde CJ, van Leeuwen FE, de Haes JC. Maintenance of physical activity and body weight in relation to subsequent quality of life in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(10):2094–2101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Spencer EA, Appleby PN, Davey GK, Key TJ. Validity of self-reported height and weight in 4808 EPIC-Oxford participants. Public Health Nutr. 2002;5(4):561–565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]