Most of the 2,604 cancer survivors transitioned from oncology to primary care did not later have an oncology visit. A total of 440 did, or 16.9% of the group, and recurrence or new disease was detected in 28.2% of those return visitors, equal to 4.8% of the full cohort. The figures come from a retrospective cohort study at the Juravinski Cancer Centre that aimed to describe why survivors returned to oncology and what happened afterward.
Many visits were not referrals back
Not every later visit represented a true referral back to oncology. The study found that 32.7% of subsequent visits involved genetic counseling, clinical trials, or palliative-care follow-up instead. Among the remaining visits, symptom investigation accounted for 32.7%, and test investigation for 23.2%. The count therefore included both non-referral appointments and visits prompted by symptoms or tests.
Some visits found recurrence or new disease
A later oncology visit did not automatically mean recurrence or new disease had been found. Detection occurred in 28.2% of return visitors, meaning most did not have recurrence or new disease detected in the reported results. Most patients in whom recurrence or new disease was detected subsequently received treatment.
The percentages use different groups as their base, a distinction that can easily be lost. The 16.9% figure covers all 2,604 survivors who had been transitioned. The 28.2% figure covers only the 440 who later visited oncology. The 4.8% figure returns to the full group, showing the share of all transitioned survivors in whom recurrence or new disease was detected.
What the records can and cannot show
The records covered cancer survivors transitioned to primary care at the Juravinski Cancer Centre between 2013 and 2020. The investigators analyzed the transitioned population and reviewed charts for those with subsequent oncology visits. This was a retrospective cohort, meaning the researchers looked back at existing records rather than assigning people to different care pathways. It can describe the pattern seen after transition, but it cannot establish that the transition itself caused the later visits or the detected disease.
The authors interpreted the small proportion returning to oncology, the small fraction of the overall cohort with detected recurrence, and the ability to reconnect with oncology as support for the safety of primary-care-led survivorship. In practical terms, the study's message is that most survivors in this cohort did not later appear in oncology, while those who did could reconnect and, when recurrence or new disease was detected, most subsequently received treatment.
The study was conducted at the Juravinski Cancer Centre and does not show that recurrence never occurs after transition or that every recurrence or new disease was detected. Its results describe the visits and detected cases captured in this cohort, rather than proving that primary-care-led survivorship produces the same outcome for every survivor.
Funding and publication
The research was funded by the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, and the authors declared no competing interests.
The article states that no datasets were generated or analyzed during the study.
It was accepted on 12 August 2026 and published as the version of record on 20 August 2026.
Paper data and sources
Original title: Subsequent oncology visits among cancer survivors transitioned to primary care: a retrospective cohort study.
Authors: Francine S Fishbein, Daryl Bainbridge, Som D Mukherjee et al.
Journal/Repository: Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice
Status: Peer-reviewed
First online: 2026-08-20
DOI: 10.1007/s11764-026-02105-2
Original paper · Full text