OBJECTIVE: To develop and establish expert consensus on essential elements of optimal dietary and exercise referral practices for cancer survivors.
METHODS: A four-round modified, Delphi method (face-to-face and electronic). In round 1, initial statements were drafted based on Cancer Australia\'s Principles of Cancer Survivorship and input from key stakeholders through a cancer preconference workshop. In round 2, the initial statements were distributed to a panel (round 1 participants) to establish consensus by rating the importance of each statement using a five-point Likert scale. Statements that required significant changes in wording were redistributed to panel members in round 3 for voting. Round 4 was for consumers, requiring them to rate their level of agreement of final statements.
RESULTS: In total, 82 stakeholders participated in round 1. Response rates for survey rounds 2 and 3 were 59% (n = 54) and 39% (n = 36). Panel members included nurses (22%), dietitians (19%), exercise professionals (16%), medical practitioners (8%), and consumers (4%). The mean \"importance\" rating for all essential elements was 4.28 or higher (i.e., fairly important, or very important). Round 4\'s consumer-only engagement received responses from 58 consumers. Overall, 24 elements reached consensus following some revised wording, including the development of three new statements based on panel feedback.
CONCLUSIONS: Our developed essential elements of optimal dietary and exercise referral practices can help provide guidance to medical and nursing health professionals relevant to dietary and exercise referral practices. Future research should conduct an implementation intervention and evaluation of these essential elements to optimise dietary and exercise care in cancer survivors.

To manage acute, long-term, and late effects of cancer, current guidelines recommend moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic and resistance exercise. Unfortunately, not all cancer survivors are able or willing to perform higher intensity exercise during difficult cancer treatments or because of other existing health conditions. Tai Chi is an equipment-free, multicomponent mind-body exercise performed at light-to-moderate intensity that may provide a more feasible alternative to traditional exercise programs for some cancer survivors. This systematic review evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of Tai Chi across the cancer care continuum. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, and CINAHL databases for interventional studies from inception to 18 September 2020. Controlled trials of the effects of Tai Chi training on patient-reported and objectively measured outcomes in cancer survivors were included. Study quality was determined by the RoB 2 tool, and effect estimates were evaluated using the Best Evidence Synthesis approach. Twenty-six reports from 14 trials (one non-randomized controlled trial) conducted during (n = 5) and after treatment (after surgery: n = 2; after other treatments: n = 7) were included. Low-level evidence emerged to support the benefits of 40-60 min of thrice-weekly supervised Tai Chi for 8-12 weeks to improve fatigue and sleep quality in cancer survivors. These findings need to be confirmed in larger trials and tested for scaling-up potential. Insufficient evidence was available to evaluate the effects of Tai Chi on other cancer-related outcomes. Future research should examine whether Tai Chi training can improve a broader range of cancer outcomes including during the pre-treatment and end of life phases.

Adolescent and young adult cancer survivors require lifelong healthcare to address the late effects of therapy. We examined the impact of different provider models of long-term follow-up (LTFU) care on adherence to recommended surveillance.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative health databases in Ontario, Canada. Five-year survivors were identified from IMPACT, a database of patients aged 15-20.9 years at diagnosis of six cancers between 1992 and 2010. We defined three models of LTFU care hierarchically: specialized survivor clinics (SCCs), general cancer clinics (GCCs), and family physician (FP). We assessed adherence to the Children\'s Oncology Group surveillance guidelines for cardiomyopathy and breast cancer. Multistate models assessed adherence transitions and impacts of LTFU attendance.
A total of 1574 survivors were followed for a mean of 9.2 years (range 4.3-13.9 years) from index (5-year survival). The highest level of LTFU attended in the first 2-years post-index was a GCC (47%); only 16.7% attended a SCC. By the end of study, 72% no longer attended any of the models of care and only 2% still attended an SCC. Among 188 survivors requiring breast cancer surveillance, 6.9% were adherent to their first required surveillance testing. Attendance at a SCC in the previous year and higher cumulative FP or GCC visits increased the rate of subsequently becoming adherent. Among 857 survivors requiring cardiomyopathy surveillance, 11% were adherent at study entry. Each subsequent SCC visit led to an 11.3% (95% CI: 1.05-1.18) increase in the rate of becoming adherent.
LTFU attendance and surveillance adherence are sub-optimal. SCC follow-up is associated with greater adherence, but few survivors receive such care, and this proportion diminished over time. Interventions are needed to improve LTFU attendance and promote surveillance adherence.

To develop consensus-based components used in the first evidence-based cancer survivorship guidelines in Japan.
Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in oncology clinical practice, nursing, health science, epidemiology, and patient advocacy. The panel engaged in a modified Delphi process to (1) generate consensus related to the definition of survivorship, (2) determine the aim and target users of the guideline, and (3) identify clinical issues for inclusion. A Web-based survey and panel meeting were conducted to obtain the panelists\' feedback on the initial draft proposed by the secretariat. Multiple online votes were then completed until all elements of the proposed guidelines reached an approval rate of 80% or higher. Following each round, iterative refinements were made based on all panelists\' feedback.
Twenty-two experts were enrolled in the panel and participated in four rounds of online voting and two face-to-face meetings. Ultimately, the panel reached consensus on the definition of survivorship, the aim of the guidelines, and target users. Moreover, 11 of the original 17 clinical issues were retained. Finally, the panel selected two priority areas to implement immediately.
The panel\'s consensus on the definition of survivorship, aim and target users of the guideline, and 11 clinical issues will serve as a compass for the development of comprehensive cancer survivorship guidelines in Japan.
A culturally sensitive consensus approach was developed to improve the long term health and well- being of cancer survivors in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the organization and structure of cancer survivorship services, and best-care practices to optimize the health and well-being of post-primary treatment survivors. This review sought to determine the optimal organization and care delivery structure for cancer survivorship services, and the specific clinical practices and interventions that would improve or maximize the psychosocial health and overall well-being of adult cancer survivors.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the Inventory of Cancer Guidelines at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, the U.S. National Guideline Clearinghouse, the Canadian Medical Association InfoBase, medline (ovid: 1999 through November 2009), embase (ovid: 1999 through November 2009), Psychinfo (ovid: 1999 through November 2009), the Cochrane Library (ovid; Issue 1, 2009), and cinahl (ebsco: 1999 through December 2009). Reference lists of related papers and recent review articles were scanned for additional citations.
METHODS: Articles were selected for inclusion as evidence in the systematic review if they reported on organizational system components for survivors of cancer, or on psychosocial or supportive care interventions HOWELL et al. designed for survivors of cancer. Articles were excluded from the systematic review if they focused only on pediatric cancer survivor populations or on populations that transitioned from pediatric cancer to adult services; if they addressed only pharmacologic interventions or diagnostic testing and follow-up of cancer survivors; if they were systematic reviews with inadequately described methods; if they were qualitative or descriptive studies; and if they were opinion papers, letters, or editorials.
METHODS: Evidence was selected and reviewed by three members of the Cancer Journey Survivorship Expert Panel (SM, TC, TKO). The resulting summary of the evidence was guided further and reviewed by the members of Cancer Journey Survivorship Expert Panel. Fourteen practice guidelines, eight systematic reviews, and sixty-thee randomized controlled trials form the evidence base for this guidance document. These publications demonstrate that survivors benefit from coordinated post-treatment care, including interventions to address specific psychosocial, supportive care, and rehabilitative concerns.
CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing high-quality research is essential to optimize services for cancer survivors. Interventions that promote healthy lifestyle behaviours or that address psychosocial concerns and distress appear to improve physical functioning, psychosocial well-being, and quality of life for survivors.