Abstract:Background: A steady increase in colorectal and prostate cancer survivors and patients with these cancers is expected in the upcoming years. As a result of primary cancer treatments, patients have numerous additional complaints, increasing the need for cancer aftercare. However, referrals to appropriate cancer aftercare remain inadequate, despite a wide range of aftercare options. Caregivers and patients often do not know which aftercare is the most appropriate for the individual patient. Since characteristics and complaints of patients within a diagnosis group may differ, predefined patient clusters could provide substantive and efficient support for professionals in the conversation about aftercare. By using advanced data analysis methods, clusters of patients who are different from one another within a diagnosis group can be identified. Objective: This study had a 2-fold objective: (1) to identify, visualize, and describe potential patient clusters within the colorectal and prostate cancer population and (2) to explore the potential usability of these clusters in clinical practice. Methods: First, we used cross-sectional data from patients with colorectal cancer and patients with prostate cancer provided by the population-based PROFILES (Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-Term Evaluation of Survivorship) registry, which were originally collected between 2008 and 2012. To identify and visualize different clusters among the 2 patient populations, we conducted cluster analyses by applying the K-means algorithm and multiple-factor analyses. Second, in a qualitative study, we presented the patient clusters to patients with prostate, patients with colorectal cancer, and oncology professionals. To assess the usability of these clusters, we held expert panel group interviews. The interviews were video recorded and transcribed. Three researchers independently performed content-directed data analyses to understand and describe the qualitative data. Quotes illustrate the most important results. Results: We identified 3 patient clusters among colorectal cancer cases (n=3989) and 5 patient clusters among prostate cancer cases (n=696), which were described in tabular form. Patient experts (6/8, 75%) and professional experts (17/20, 85%) recognized the patient clustering based on distinguishing variables. However, the tabular form was evaluated as less applicable in clinical practice. Instead, the experts suggested the development of a conversation tool (eg, decision tree) to guide professionals through the hierarchy of variables. In addition, participants suggested that information about possible aftercare initiatives should be offered and integrated. This would also ensure a good overview and seemed to be a precondition for finding suitable aftercare. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that a fully data-driven approach can be used to identify distinguishable and recognizable (ie, in routine care) patient clusters in large data sets within cancer populations. Patient clusters can be a source of support for health professionals in the aftercare conversation. These clusters, when integrated into a smart digital conversation and referral tool, might be an opportunity to improve referral to cancer aftercare. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register NL9226; https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL9226

Assessing patients' needs in the follow-up after treatment for colorectal cancer—a mixed-method study

Cancer follow-up in primary care after treatment with curative intent: Views of patients with breast and colorectal cancer

Cancer survivors’ needs during various treatment phases after multimodal treatment for colon cancer - is there a role for eHealth?

Understanding colorectal cancer patient follow-up: a qualitative interview study

Patient experiences with patient-led, home-based follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: a qualitative study

eHealth interventions to support colorectal cancer patients' self-management after discharge from surgery-an integrative literature review

Exploring colorectal cancer survivors' perspectives on improving care delivery and the role of e-health technology: a qualitative study

Identifying the unmet needs of post-treatment colorectal cancer survivors: A critical literature review

Eliciting Older Cancer Patients' Preferences for Follow-Up Care to Inform a Primary Healthcare Follow-Up Model in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

A systematic review of the supportive care needs of people living with and beyond cancer of the colon and/or rectum

Experiences and perspectives of colorectal cancer survivors and general practitioners on the delivery of survivorship care in general practice: a mixed methods study

Supporting follow-up care in colorectal cancer patients: first experiences with the Assessment of Burden of ColoRectal Cancer (ABCRC)-tool

Identification and Potential Use of Clusters of Patients With Colorectal Cancer and Patients With Prostate Cancer in Clinical Practice: Explorative Mixed Methods Study

Evaluating unmet needs in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer: a patient reported outcome measures study

Unmet supportive care needs of patients with colorectal cancer based on survival stage: A scoping review

An overview of 25 years of incidence, treatment and outcome of colorectal cancer patients

Models of Follow-Up Care and Secondary Prevention Measures for Survivors of Colorectal Cancer: Evidence-Based Guidelines and Systematic Review

Assessment of needs, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with care in breast cancer patients to better target supportive care

Delivering colon cancer survivorship care in primary care; a qualitative study on the experiences of general practitioners

Health care needs of cancer survivors in general practice: a systematic review

Proactive cancer care in primary care: a mixed-methods study