Knowledge, attitudes, risk perception, and cancer screening behaviors among cancer survivors

BACKGROUND:

Knowledge, attitudes, and risk perception in relation to second primary cancer (SPC) screening and their impact on screening practices in cancer survivors are largely unknown.

METHODS:

A total of 326 cancer survivors who had completed primary treatment for cancer >1 year previously were recruited from 6 oncology care outpatient clinics in the Republic of Korea. Survivors' knowledge, attitudes, perceived risk, and screening practices were assessed along with sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine behavioral factors associated with the completion of all appropriate SPC screening according to national guidelines.

RESULTS:

Approximately 37.7% of survivors had undergone all appropriate SPC screening tests. Survivors were found to have a high perceived risk of SPC, high perceived benefits of screening, and positive attitudes toward cancer screening. However, they had limited knowledge regarding SPC screening tests and few had received a recommendation from a physician to undergo SPC screening. Although there was no association found between perceived risk and positive attitudes with screening behavior, higher knowledge was noted to be significantly associated with the completion of all appropriate SPC screening (adjusted odds ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.03‐3.33).

CONCLUSIONS:

In the current study, cancer survivors were found to have limited knowledge regarding second cancer screening tests, which may have resulted in lower rates of completion of screening practices in this population. Cancer 2011. © 2011 American Cancer Society.     

Oncologists’ perspectives on post‐cancer treatment communication and care coordination with primary care physicians

Post‐treatment cancer care is often fragmented and of suboptimal quality. We explored factors that may affect cancer survivors’ post‐treatment care coordination, including oncologists’ use of electronic technologies such as e‐mail and integrated electronic health records (EHRs) to communicate with primary care physicians (PCPs). We used data from a survey (357 respondents; participation rate 52.9%) conducted in 2012–2013 among medical oncologists caring for patients in a large US study of cancer care delivery and outcomes. Oncologists reported their frequency and mode of communication with PCPs, and role in providing post‐treatment care. Seventy‐five per cent said that they directly communicated with PCPs about post‐treatment status and care recommendations for all/most patients. Among those directly communicating with PCPs, 70% always/usually used written correspondence, while 36% always/usually used integrated EHRs; telephone and e‐mail were less used. Eighty per cent reported co‐managing with PCPs at least one post‐treatment general medical care need. In multivariate‐adjusted analyses, neither communication mode nor intensity were associated with co‐managing survivors’ care. Oncologists’ reliance on written correspondence to communicate with PCPs may be a barrier to care coordination. We discuss new research directions for enhancing communication and care coordination between oncologists and PCPs, and to better meet the needs of cancer survivors post‐treatment.     

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Caring for Adult Survivors of Hematologic Malignancies and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

BackgroundPrimary care physicians (PCPs) may face barriers to caring for hematologic malignancy and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) survivors.MethodsA Web-based survey consisting of 40 questions and 2 case scenarios was administered to 302 PCPs at 2 large integrated health care systems. The questionnaire assessed perceived barriers to delivery of care to hematologic malignancy/HCT survivors, resources available to care for cancer survivors, practices for care coordination with hematologist-oncologists, and preferred models of care delivery.ResultsOverall response rate was 30% (n = 86). PCPs reported several barriers such as lack of resources to facilitate care (69%), lack of awareness of screening/prevention guidelines (55%) and psychosocial needs of survivors (65%), inadequate time (65%), and patient preference to follow up with their oncologists (66%). They expressed confidence in caring for general medical issues (84%) and general cancer screening (73%), but they preferred that oncologists manage cancer-related medical issues (42%) as well as screen for cancer recurrence (52%) and secondary cancers (55%). In multivariable analysis, PCPs who had previously cared for a large number of hematologic malignancy/HCT survivors and those with a longer time since graduation from medical school had greater confidence in managing cancer-related medical issues.ConclusionPCPs report several barriers in providing care to hematologic malignancy/HCT survivors. Clinical experience with this patient population is associated with greater confidence in providing survivorship care. Several barriers identified by PCPs in providing survivorship care to hematologic malignancy/HCT survivors are potentially addressable by education and clinical decision support tools and guidelines, thereby enhancing the patients’ clinical experience and care coordination with hematologist-oncologists.     

Understanding the Attitudes and Beliefs of Oncologists Regarding the Transitioning and Sharing of Survivorship Care

Transitioning survivorship care from oncologists to primary care physicians (PCPs) is a reasonable alternative to oncologist-led care. This study assessed oncologists’ attitudes and beliefs regarding sharing/transitioning survivorship care. A prospective survey of oncologists within a regional cancer program assessing self-reported barriers and facilitators to sharing/transitioning survivorship care was disseminated. In total, 63% (n = 39) of surveyed oncologists responded. Patient preference (89%) and anxiety (84%) are key to transition of care decisions; reduced remuneration (95%) and fewer longitudinal relationships (63%) do not contribute. Oncologists agreed that more patients could be shared/transitioned. Barriers include treatment-related toxicities (82% agree), tumor-specific factors (60–90% agree) and perception of PCP willingness to participate in survivorship care (47% agree). Oncologists appear willing to share/transition more survivors to PCPs, though barriers exist that warrant further study. Understanding these issues is critical to developing policies supporting comprehensive survivorship care models that address both cancer and non-cancer health needs. The demonstrated feasibility of this project warrants a larger-scale survey of oncologists with respect to the transition of survivorship care to PCPs, to further inform effective interventions to support high-quality survivorship care.     

A Cross-sectional Study of Knowledge,Attitude and Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening among Cancer Survivors

Introduction: Understanding behaviour of cancer survivors is imperative as they are at risk of recurrence or second cancers. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers globally. We aim to determine the uptake rate, barriers and predictors of CRC screening among cancer survivors. Methods: Within a public hospital in Singapore, 150 non-CRC survivors were enrolled. Questionnaire on knowledge, screening behaviour, motivators and barriers towards CRC screening was administered. Results: Majority were survivors of breast (69.3%), prostate (7.3%), endometrial (4%) and ovarian (4%) cancers. More than half had high knowledge scores for CRC symptoms, screening tests and risk factors. About a third had received physician’s recommendation on CRC screening. Approximately half had undergone screening. The most common barriers to CRC screening were lack of symptoms and physician’s recommendation. Cancer survivors with higher education, higher household income, family history and those who perceived “great need” or “some need” were more likely to have undergone screening (56.4% vs 30.6%, p=0.003; 62.2% vs 41.9%, p=0.022; 70.6% vs 45.1%, p=0.048; 70.8% vs 27.4%, p<0.001). Physician’s recommendation (76.4% vs 31.6%, p<0.001) and high CRC symptom knowledge (55.8% vs 34.5%, p=0.012) were associated with increased likelihood of screening.On multivariate analysis, physician’s recommendation, higher household income and survivors’ perceived need to undergo screening remained strong predictors for CRC screening (p<0.001; p=0.010; p<0.001). Conclusion: The uptake rate of CRC screening among non-CRC survivors was modest. Physicians need to be more active in discussing CRC screening with cancer survivors as part of the survivorship care plan.     

Knowledge,Barriers and Attitudes Towards Breast Cancer Mammography Screening in Jordan

Background: Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in Jordan. Current efforts are focused onannual campaigns aimed at increasing awareness about breast cancer and encouraging women to conductmammogram screening. In the absence of regular systematic screening for breast cancer in Jordan, there is aneed to evaluate current mammography screening uptake and its predictors, assess women’s knowledge andattitudes towards breast cancer and screening mammograms and to identify barriers to this preventive service.Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in six governorates in Jordan through faceto-face interviews on a random sample of women aged 40 to 69 years. Results: A total of 507 participants withmean age of 46.8±7.8 years were interviewed. There was low participation rate in early detection of breastcancer practices. Breast self-examination, doctor examination and periodic mammography screening werereported by 34.9%, 16.8% and 8.6% of study participants, respectively. Additionally 3.8% underwent breastcancer screening at least once but not periodically, while 87.6% had never undergone mammography screening.Reported reasons for conducting the screening were: perceived benefit (50%); family history of breast cancer(23.1%); perceived severity (21.2%); and advice from friend or family member (5.8%). City residents haveshown higher probability of undergoing mammogram than those who live in towns or villages. Results revealednegative perceptions and limited knowledge of study participants on breast cancer and breast cancer screening.The most commonly reported barriers for women who never underwent screening were: fear of results (63.8%);no support from surrounding environment (59.7); cost of the test (53.4%); and religious belief, i.e. Qadaa WaQadar (51.1%). Conclusions: In the absence of regular systematic screening for breast cancer in Jordan, theuptake of this preventive service is very low. It is essential for the country of Jordan to work on applying regularsystematic mammography screening for breast cancer. Additionally, there is a need for improvement in thecurrent health promotion programmes targeting breast cancer screening. Other areas that could be targeted infuture initiatives in this field include access to screening in rural areas and removal of current barriers.     

Oncologists’ identification of mental health distress in cancer patients: Strategies and barriers

The purpose of this research was to examine oncologists’ perspectives on indicators of mental health distress in patients: what strategies they use to identify these indicators, and what barriers they face in this task. Twenty‐three oncologists were interviewed, and the grounded theory method of data collection and analysis was used. Oncologists perceived distress to be a normative part of having cancer and looked for affective, physical, verbal and behavioural indicators using a number of strategies. Barriers to identification of mental health distress included difficulty in differentiating between mental health distress and symptoms of the disease, and lack of training. A systematic, time‐efficient assessment of symptoms of emotional distress is critical for identification of psychiatric disorders among patients and differentiating normative emotional responses from psychopathology. Clinical bias and misdiagnosis can be a consequence of an ad hoc, intuitive approach to assessment, which can have consequences for patients and their families. Once elevated risk is identified for mental health distress, the patient can be referred to specialised care that can offer evidence‐based treatments.     

Riding the crest of the teachable moment: promoting long-term health after the diagnosis of cancer.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivors are at increased risk for several comorbid conditions, and many seek lifestyle change to reduce dysfunction and improve long-term health. To better understand the impact of cancer on adult survivors' health and health behaviors, a review was conducted to determine (1) prevalent physical health conditions, (2) persistent lifestyle changes, and (3) outcomes of previous lifestyle interventions aimed at improving health within this population. METHODS: Relevant studies from 1966 and beyond were identified through MEDLINE and PubMed searches. RESULTS: Cancer survivors are at increased risk for progressive disease but also for second primaries, osteoporosis, obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and functional decline. To improve overall health, survivors frequently initiate diet, exercise, and other lifestyle changes after diagnosis. However, those who are male, older, and less educated are less likely to adopt these changes. There also is selective uptake of messages, as evidenced by findings that only 25% to 42% of survivors consume adequate amounts of fruits and vegetables, and approximately 70% of breast and prostate cancer survivors are overweight or obese. Several behavioral interventions show promise for improving survivors' health-related outcomes. Oncologists can play a pivotal role in health promotion, yet only 20% provide such guidance. CONCLUSION: With 64% of cancer patients surviving > 5 years beyond diagnosis, oncologists are challenged to expand their focus from acute care to managing the long-term health consequences of cancer. Although more research is needed, opportunities exist for oncologists to promote lifestyle changes that may improve the length and quality of life of their patients.     

Health care for childhood cancer survivors: insights and perspectives from a Delphi panel of young adult survivors of childhood cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most children diagnosed with cancer are surviving into adulthood but are not receiving adequate or appropriate follow-up health care. However, to the authors' knowledge, there is little literature published to date exploring potential barriers to long-term risk-based follow-up care for young adult survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS: In the current study, using a modified Delphi technique, young adult cancer survivors identified barriers to utilizing appropriate follow-up care and offered suggestions for ways to enhance health care in this young adult population. RESULTS: Major barriers to health care were found to be a lack of knowledge on the part of both physicians and survivors regarding long-term health issues related to cancer. Suggestions to enhance care included self-advocacy training for survivors and advanced training for primary care physicians who may treat childhood cancer survivors as they transition into adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study are consistent with reports that young adult survivors of childhood cancer need or desire information regarding their medical histories, psychosocial support, and social advocacy.     

Young adult cancer survivors’ follow-up care expectations of oncologists and primary care physicians

Purpose

Young adult cancer survivors face unique challenges associated with their illness. While both oncologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) may be involved in the follow-up care of these cancer survivors, we hypothesized that there is a lack of clarity regarding each physician’s roles and responsibilities.

Methods

A self-administered survey was mailed to young adult cancer survivors in British Columbia, Canada, who were aged 20 to 39 years at the time of diagnosis and alive at 2 to 5 years following the diagnosis to capture their expectations of oncologists and PCPs in various important domains of cancer survivorship care. Multivariate logistic regression models that adjusted for confounders were constructed to examine for predictors of the different expectations.

Results

Of 722 young cancer survivors surveyed, 426 (59%) responded. Among them, the majority were White women with breast cancer. Oncologists were expected to follow the patient’s most recent cancer and treatment-related side effects while PCPs were expected to manage ongoing and future cancer surveillance as well as general preventative care. Neither physician was perceived to be responsible for addressing the return to daily activities, reintegration to interpersonal relationships, or sexual function. Older survivors were significantly less likely to expect oncologists (p = 0.03) and PCPs (p = 0.01) to discuss family planning when compared to their younger counterparts. Those who were White were significantly more likely to expect PCPs to discuss comorbidities (p = 0.009) and preventative care (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Young adult cancer survivors have different expectations of oncologists and PCPs with respect to their follow-up care. Physicians need to better clarify their roles in order to further improve the survivorship phase of cancer care for young adults.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Young adult cancer survivors have different expectations of their oncologists and PCPs. Clarification of the roles of each physician group during follow-up can enhance the quality of survivorship care for young adults.

     

The well-being and personal wellness promotion strategies of medical oncologists in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group

PURPOSE: The well-being of oncologists is important to the well-being of their patients. While much is known about oncologist distress, little is known about oncologist well-being. We set out to evaluate oncologist well-being and the personal wellness promotion strategies used by oncologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of medical oncologists in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group using a validated instrument to measure quality of life. Study-specific questions explored stressors, wellness promotion strategies and career satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 241 responding oncologists (response rate 61%), 121 (50%) reported high overall well-being. Being age 50 or younger (57 vs. 41%; p = 0.01), male (53 vs. 31%; p = 0.01) and working 60 h or less per week (50 vs. 33%; p = 0.005) were associated with increased overall well-being on bivariate analysis. Ratings of the importance of a number of personal wellness promotion strategies differed for oncologists with high well-being compared with those without high well-being. Developing an approach/philosophy to dealing with death and end-of-life care, using recreation/hobbies/exercise, taking a positive outlook and incorporating a philosophy of balance between personal and professional life were all rated as substantially more important wellness strategies by oncologists with high well-being (p values <0.001). Oncologists with high overall well-being also reported greater career satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Half of medical oncologists experience high overall well-being. Use of specific personal wellness promotion strategies appears to be associated with oncologist well-being. Further investigations of the prevalence, promotion, causes, inequities and clinical impact of physician well-being are needed. .     

Opportunities and Barriers to Breast Cancer Screening in a Rural Community in Coastal Karnataka,India: A Qualitative Analysis

Background: Breast cancer is reported to be the most common cancer among women in India with a high mortality to incidence ratio. Late presentation, driven by lack of awareness and limited accessibility to health services are some of the stated reasons for this. Given this context, this qualitative study was carried out to understand the perception of rural women towards the disease and factors that influenced utilization of available screening services among them. Methods: Forty-four rural women aged 20-60 years from a coastal province in southern India participated in four Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) that were conducted to understand their perception, attitudes and barriers towards breast cancer screening. Participants were identified from the community through purposive sampling and constituted of home makers and working women. The FGDs were led by trained facilitators and the discussions recorded. Ideas and concepts that emerged were listed as codes. Related and similar codes were grouped to form six themes. Results: Women in the study belonged to low- and middle-income households with a mean age of 42.8 ± 7.8 years and almost all had attended school. Although the respondents exhibited fairly good knowledge about the disease, cultural inhibitions, forgetfulness, economic constraints and apprehension towards tertiary health care facility were some of the barriers reported in the uptake of screening services. Participants hailed the role of female health care providers as motivational figures and stressed the need for easily comprehensible information dissemination strategies besides expecting an equal participation of men in issues involving women’s health. Conclusion: Involving cancer survivors as educators and empowering men on women’s health in addition to the felt need of a patient advocate to improve accessibility were some of the highlights of the discussions. Addressing these could go a long way in improving the cancer care continuum in the region.     

Barriers to clinical trial enrollment of older adults with cancer: A qualitative study of the perceptions of community and academic oncologists

ObjectivesOncologists can be one of the major barriers to older adult's participation in research. Multiple studies have described academic clinicians' concerns for not enrolling older adults onto trials. Although the majority of older adults receive their cancer care in the community, few studies have examined the unique challenges that community oncologists face and how they differ from oncologist-related barriers in academia.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone or face-to-face with 44 medical oncologists (24 academic-based and 20 community-based) at City of Hope from March to June 2018. Interviews explored oncologists' perceptions of barriers to clinical trial enrollment of older adults with cancer. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsOf the 44 participants, 36% were women and 68% were in practice for >10 years. Among the entire sample, stringent eligibility criteria (n = 20) and oncologist concerns for treatment toxicities (n = 15) were the most commonly cited barriers. Compared to academic oncologists, community oncologists more often cited patient attitudes, beliefs, and understanding (n = 9 vs. n = 2) and caregiver burden (n = 6 vs. n = 0). In contrast, compared to community oncologists, academic oncologists more often cited oncologist bias (n = 10 vs. n = 3) and insufficient time/support (n = 4 vs. n = 1).ConclusionsDifferences in perceptions among academic and community oncologists about trials suggest that barriers are multifaceted, complex, and vary by practice setting. Interventions to increase trial accrual among older adults with cancer may benefit from being tailored to address the unique barriers of different practice settings.     

Health behaviors of cancer survivors: examining opportunities for cancer control intervention.

PURPOSE: A population-based investigation was conducted to examine the prevalence of health behaviors (smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and cancer screening) of cancer survivors by age, time since diagnosis, and cancer site. Understanding health behaviors of survivors is imperative, as many survivors are living longer and are at risk for cancer recurrence, second cancers, and complications from treatment. METHODS: Using the National Health Interview Survey, this study examined the prevalence of smoking and alcohol use as well as whether cancer survivors (n = 7,384) are meeting current recommendations for physical activity and cancer screening compared with noncancer controls (n = 121,347). RESULTS: Cancer survivors are similar to controls with respect to smoking status and alcohol consumption after adjusting for group differences. However, younger survivors (18 to 40 years) are at greater risk for continued smoking than controls. Survivors are 9% more likely to meet physical activity recommendations compared with controls. chi2 tests indicate no significant differences in smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity by time since diagnosis, but differences by cancer site exist. Female cancer survivors are 34% and 36% more likely to meet mammogram and Papanicolaou smear screening recommendations, respectively, compared with controls. Similar screening patterns were found for prostate-specific antigen screening in men. CONCLUSION: This study provides benchmark approximations of the prevalence of risky health behaviors of survivors by time since diagnosis and cancer site. As part of the collective effort to reduce late effects of cancer treatment, oncologists may be in the best position to offer initial guidance for promoting healthy lifestyle behaviors among cancer survivors.     

Providers’ Perspectives of Survivorship Care for Young Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer

We examined healthcare providers’ perceptions of the goals of survivorship care and survivor programs, systems-level barriers and individual patient-level barriers to engaging patients in survivorship care, and potential resources for increasing engagement. In 2012, we recruited 21 healthcare providers of young adult survivors of childhood cancers from a children’s hospital and a cancer center in the Southeastern USA to complete telephone-based semi-structured interviews. The sample was 45.95 years old (SD?=?7.57) on average, 52.4 % female, and 81.0 % MDs. The major goals of survivorship programs identified were medical care management (e.g., addressing late and long-term effects, providing survivorship care plans (SCPs), assisting in transition of care) and holistic care including addressing psychosocial issues and promoting healthy lifestyles. Systems-level barriers to engagement in survivorship care included limited resources (e.g., time), role confusion (e.g., within cancer centers, from treatment team to survivorship care, role of primary care providers), communication challenges within the medical system (e.g., limited tracking of patients, lack of understanding of the role of survivorship clinic), communication challenges with patients (e.g., setting expectations regarding transition to survivorship care), and lack of insurance coverage. Perceived patient-level factors included psychological barriers (e.g., fear, avoidance), resistance to survivorship care, and physical barriers (e.g., distance from survivorship clinics). Resources to address these barriers included increased access to information, technology-based resources, and ensuring valuable services. There are several systems-level and patient-level barriers to survivorship care, thus requiring multilevel interventions to promote engagement in care among young adult survivors of childhood cancer.     

Long-term survivors of adult cancers and uptake of primary health services: a systematic review

AimThe aim of this paper is to systematically review the literature on the use of primary and community care services by long-term survivors of adult cancers.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of eight databases and considered papers looking at primary care aspects of surviving cancer at least 3 years past diagnosis.ResultsTen eligible papers in four categories: consultation rates in primary care, cancer screening, use of preventative services and chronic disease management. There was no conclusive evidence that cancer survivors have increased rates of consultation in primary care. The studies reported that cancer screening is well managed in survivors. Preventative and chronic care is worse in long-term colorectal cancer survivors compared with long-term breast cancer survivors and controls.ConclusionWe found little research, especially outside the United States, relating to the care of long-term cancer survivors in primary care. Future work should examine screening for treatment-specific sequelae and the quality of care for co-morbid disease.     

Physician and staff perceptions of barriers to colorectal cancer screening in Appalachian Kentucky.

BACKGROUND: Data indicate that in 1997 to 1999, only 44% of Appalachian Kentuckians underwent colorectal cancer screening consistent with guidelines. We investigated the reasons for, barriers to, and follow-up of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations in primary care practices seeing patients from Appalachian Kentucky. METHODS: A mixed-methods [qualitative (focus group) and quantitative (survey)] approach was used to gather and analyze data in five primary care practices. A total of 34 participated in the focus groups. RESULTS: In focus groups, physicians and office staff reported a number of indicators for CRC screening; physician, patient, and procedural barriers to CRC screening; and strategies to overcome these barriers to screening. Most physicians used personal experience to guide screening, but it was unclear what was meant by personal experience. Commonly cited patient barriers to screening were fear and embarrassment. Physicians reported several approaches to overcome these barriers, including establishing trust and educating patients. Survey data identified a number of resources to assist practices in promoting screening, most commonly, patient educational materials. Finally, fecal occult blood test was most commonly recommended because it is inexpensive and easy to administer. CONCLUSIONS: Our mixed methods approach not only helped to understand the physicians' perceptions of the problems and barriers to CRC screening in Appalachian Kentucky, but also elucidated how practices endeavor to overcome these barriers and identified the additional resources practices would like in order to promote CRC screening.     

American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE 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 .