Risk-Stratified Cancer Survivorship Care: The Future of Follow-Up Models

The next generation of survivorship models: stratify recurrence risk, anticipate late effects, and use digital tools to deliver the right care to the right survivors.

Risk-Stratified Cancer Survivorship Care: The Future of Follow-Up Models

Cancer survivorship is entering a new era: personalized survivorship pathways are becoming feasible, not just aspirational. The driver is a collision of forces—rapid survivor growth, workforce limits, and better data/technology that can finally match follow-up intensity to individual risk. As of January 1, 2025, there were ~18.6 million cancer survivors in the U.S., projected to exceed 22 million by 2035.

At the same time, survivorship leaders have been clear that “business as usual” follow-up is not sustainable. Organizations like NCI explicitly support initiatives studying survivorship models of care, including risk-stratified care, because model design is central to making survivorship deliverable at scale.

In this article, we’ll use two examples to show why risk-stratified cancer survivorship care is the future:

Risk-stratified recurrence surveillance, moving beyond one-size-fits-all follow-up schedules
Predictive risk models for late effects, using cardiotoxicity as a real-world case

Then we’ll connect these to the bigger shift happening now: technology-enabled survivorship programs are making risk stratification practical—through remote symptom monitoring, risk flagging, analytics, and smarter care routing.

What is risk-stratified survivorship care?

Risk-stratified survivorship care is a personalized approach where survivors are triaged into different follow-up pathways based on the complexity of their needs and predicted risks.

In plain terms:

Not every survivor needs the same follow-up intensity.
Some survivors need less (and can safely transition to shared care with clear triggers).
Some survivors need more (because risk, symptom burden, or treatment exposure is high).

ASCO’s survivorship work acknowledges that the most appropriate model should be personalized based on factors like cancer type, treatments, comorbidities, current issues, predicted risks, and time since treatment.

Example 1: Risk-stratified recurrence surveillance after breast cancer

The problem with current follow-up schedules

Modern follow-up guidance is far more structured than decades ago—but many surveillance recommendations still share a major limitation: they are not truly tailored to individual recurrence risk.

This gap is clearly recognized in the literature. De Rose and colleagues describe how follow-up policies often lean toward a “one-size-fits-all” approach that doesn’t reflect meaningful differences in subtype, prognosis, and treatments received—and argue for risk-based follow-up development.

Real-world impact: care intensity doesn’t always match risk

The consequences show up in real-world delivery: variability in visits and imaging can be substantial, and resources don’t always align with where risk is highest.

Morgan and colleagues (2024) review how recurrence outcomes are collected and reported in population-based registry contexts and highlight the practical challenges of consistent, long-term recurrence tracking—an important barrier to building “learning” surveillance systems that reliably match follow-up intensity to risk.

The direction of travel: personalized follow-up schedules based on stage and subtype

A concrete step toward risk-based recurrence surveillance comes from Neuman et al. (2023), which assessed how anatomic stage and receptor status relate to recurrence timing and proposed risk-stratified follow-up recommendations.

Why this matters operationally: If recurrence risk and recurrence timing differ substantially by stage and subtype, then follow-up frequency and modality should also differ—so systems can reduce low-value follow-up for low-risk survivors while protecting access for those at higher risk.

Example 2: Predictive models for late effects (cardiotoxicity as the case study)

Recurrence isn’t the only place where risk stratification changes everything. Survivorship guidelines already acknowledge a wide range of late and long-term effects—fatigue, sleep disorders, cognitive function, sexual health, lymphedema, and cardiovascular toxicity/risk among others.

What’s changing now is the shift from reactive survivorship (“treat it when it shows up”) to predictive survivorship (“identify who is most likely to develop a serious late effect, then monitor and prevent earlier”).

What the evidence says (CTRCD prediction models)

A BMJ systematic review and meta-analysis (2025) evaluated prediction models for cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD), reviewing models that were developed and/or validated and quantitatively analyzing performance.

What this enables (even before models are “perfect”)

These models are not yet universal plug-and-play solutions. External validation, generalizability across diverse populations and treatments, and evidence of real-world impact remain key limitations.

But the signal is important: survivorship is building tools that could stratify late-effect risk in ways that change delivery, for example:

more intensive cardiac surveillance for higher-risk survivors
less unnecessary testing for lower-risk survivors
earlier cardio-oncology referral when risk is highest
clearer shared-care protocols among oncology, cardiology, and primary care

That is the core survivorship transformation: from blanket “everyone gets the same” follow-up to targeted pathways based on predicted risk and need.

Why risk stratification is the future of survivorship follow-up pathways

When follow-up intensity is driven mainly by habit or broad guideline ranges, systems end up with the wrong care in the wrong places—too much for some survivors, not enough for others.

Risk-stratified survivorship care addresses three systemic constraints at once:

Survivor volume is rising fast (18.6M → >22M by 2035).
Workforce capacity is limited, so survivorship must become more efficient and team-based.
Data and digital workflows can now support routing, monitoring, and measurement at scale (the operational layer that older survivorship models lacked).

How digital health makes risk-stratified survivorship scalable

Risk stratification only works if it can be executed reliably in day-to-day operations. Digital tools are increasingly the “delivery engine” that makes personalized pathways practical by enabling:

Remote symptom monitoring and structured assessments
Risk flagging (based on treatment exposures, comorbidities, subtype/stage, symptom burden)
Analytics that show who is receiving what intensity of care—and whether it matches risk
Care routing into the right pathway (self-management + PCP shared care vs nurse/APP survivorship vs specialty clinic)
Closed-loop referrals so survivors aren’t lost after handoffs

This is how risk stratification moves from theory to measurable service delivery.

Conclusion: we’re on the edge of a survivorship care revolution

Survivorship is shifting from one-size-fits-all follow-up to risk-stratified survivorship care because the old model can’t keep up. Recurrence surveillance is moving toward risk-based schedules informed by stage, biology, and treatment exposure. Late-effect management is moving from reactive symptom control to predictive pathways—where high-risk survivors are identified earlier and monitored more precisely.

Digital health is not just supporting this shift—it’s enabling it: remote symptom monitoring, data-driven risk flags, analytics, and referral routing are the operational tools that make personalization scalable and measurable.

If your organization is thinking about how to support the growing population of cancer survivors without adding major workload to already-stretched teams, we’d love to connect.

Request a demo

Or talk to our team

Risk-Stratified Cancer Survivorship Care: The Future of Follow-Up Models