Alternative methods of follow up in breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature

Capturing longer term surgical outcome measures as part of routine care of breast cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

The transition away from routine clinical follow up after breast cancer towards imaging surveillance and patient-initiated contact limits opportunities for patients and doctors to communicate about the long-term effects of treatment. The ABS oncoplastic guidelines (2021) recommend that post-operative 2D images and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are routinely collected but give no guidance as to how best to implement this.

METHODS

From December 2019 until March 2024, women due for their year 3 or 5 surveillance mammogram at The Royal Marsden Sutton site were invited to complete a BREAST-Q questionnaire and attend medical photography. Panel assessment of photographs was undertaken. Results were presented to the oncoplastic MDT, including summary PROMs and illustrative case presentations. Free-text comments were shared with the relevant teams. Associations between demographic or clinic-pathological factors and uptake were investigated.

RESULTS

Of the 1211 women invited, 246 patients (20.3 %) completed BREAST-Q questionnaires, 182 (15.0 %) attended for medical photography and 114 (9.4 %) completed both. Uptake was not associated with age, ethnicity or surgical factors but patients with higher BMI were less likely to respond to the questionnaire. Patients who had undergone complex oncoplastic procedures were more likely to respond than those who had simple procedures. Patient-reported outcome results were in line with the published literature.

CONCLUSION

Reviewing images with their paired PROMs and discussing free-text feedback was instructive for the team. Work is needed to identify barriers to patient participation and improve uptake to be representative of the overall patient population. Quantifying appearance in photographs would help summarise aesthetic outcome data.

Assessing Mode of Recurrence in Breast Cancer to Identify an Optimised Follow-Up Pathway: 10-Year Institutional Review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer surveillance programmes ensure early identification of recurrence which maximises overall survival. Programmes include annual clinical examination and radiological assessment. There remains debate around the value of annual clinical exam in diagnosing recurrent disease/second primaries. The aim was to assess diagnostic modalities for recurrent breast cancer with a focus on evaluating the role of annual clinical examination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospectively maintained database from a symptomatic breast cancer service between 2010-2020 was reviewed. Patients with biopsy-proven recurrence/second breast primary were included. The primary outcome was the diagnostic modality by which recurrences/secondary breast cancers were observed. Diagnostic modalities included (i) self-detection by the patient, (ii) clinical examination by a breast surgeon or (iii) radiological assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 233 patients were identified and, following application of exclusion criteria, a total of 140 patients were included. A total of 65/140 (46%) patients were diagnosed clinically, either by self-detection or clinical examination, while 75/140 (54%) were diagnosed radiologically. A total of 59/65 (91%) of patients clinically diagnosed with recurrence presented to the breast clinic after self-detection of an abnormality. Four (6%) patients had cognitive impairment and recurrence was diagnosed by a carer. Two (3%) patients were diagnosed with recurrence by a breast surgeon at clinical examination. The median time to recurrence in all patients was 48 months (range 2-263 months).

CONCLUSION

Clinical examination provides little value in diagnosing recurrence (< 5%) and surveillance programmes may benefit from reduced focus on such a modality. Regular radiological assessment and ensuring patients have urgent/easy access to a breast clinic if they develop new symptoms/signs should be the focus of surveillance programmes.

Unmet supportive care needs of breast, colorectal and testicular cancer survivors in the first 8 months post primary treatment: A prospective longitudinal survey

Objectives

To explore the supportive care needs of cancer survivors, the characteristics of patients with high levels of unmet need, changes in unmet need after treatment ends and differences in unmet needs of breast, colorectal and testicular survivors.

Methods

The method used was a prospective longitudinal mailed survey. Unmet needs, measured by 25‐item modified Cancer Survivors Unmet Needs survey at baseline (immediately post‐treatment) and 8 months later, were analysed descriptively.

Results

Of 434 breast, 186 colorectal and 75 testicular patients responding at baseline, 56.2%, 65.6% and 50.7%, respectively, had no unmet needs, the top decile having ≥10 (breast) or seven (colorectal and testicular) different needs and seven different unmet needs. The most frequently reported unmet need (all groups) was fear of cancer recurrence. Unmet needs fell significantly at 8 months for breast patients. Some patients reported new needs. Needs were lowest amongst colorectal survivors and differed between the three groups. Higher levels of unmet needs (breast and colorectal) were associated with having had chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Most survivors reported few unmet needs, but a small proportion have persisting or emerging needs. Routine or regular monitoring of unmet needs is required so that healthcare professionals can deliver personalised care based on individual needs, preferences and circumstances.

The development and initial validation of the Breast Cancer Recurrence instrument (BreastCaRe)-a patient-reported outcome measure for detecting symptoms of recurrence after breast cancer

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outomes (PRO) may facilitate prompt treatment. We describe the development and psychometric properties of the first instrument to monitor for symptoms of breast cancer (BC) recurrence.

METHODS

This study is nested in the MyHealth randomized trial of nurse-led follow-up based on electronically-collected PROs. We constructed items assessing symptoms of potential recurrence through expert interviews with six BC specialists in Denmark. Semi-structured cognitive interviews were carried out with a patient panel to assess acceptability and comprehensibility. Items were subsequently tested in a population of 1170 women 1-10 years after completing BC treatment. We carried out multiple-groups confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis to test dimensionality, local dependence (LD) and differential item functioning (DIF) according to sociodemographic and treatment-related factors. Clinical data was obtained from the Danish Breast Cancer Group registry.

RESULTS

Twenty-two items were generated for the Breast Cancer Recurrence instrument (BreastCaRe). Cognitive testing resulted in clearer items. Seven subscales based on general, bone, liver, lung, brain, locoregional and contralateral recurrence symptoms were proposed. Both CFA and Rasch models confirmed the factor structure. No DIF was identified. Five item pairs showed LD but all items were retained to avoid loss of clinical information. Rasch models taking LD into account were used to generate a standardized scoring table for each subscale.

CONCLUSIONS

The BreastCaRe has good content and structural validity, patient acceptability and measurement invariance. We are preparing to examine the predictive validity of this new instrument.

The COVID-19 pandemic: An opportunity to rethink and harmonise the frequency of follow-up visits for patients with early stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

While routine, in-person follow-up of early-stage breast cancer patients (EBC) after completion of initial treatment is common, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes in clinical practice. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting different frequencies of routine follow-up.

METHODS

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from database inception to July 16, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCS) evaluating different frequencies of routine follow-up. Citations were assessed by pairs of independent reviewers. Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. Findings were summarized narratively.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 3316 studies, of which 7 (6 RCTs and 1 PCS) were eligible. Study endpoints included; quality of life (QoL; 5 RCTs and 1 PCS), disease free survival (DFS) (1 RCT), overall survival (OS) (1 RCT) and cost-effectiveness (1 RCT). The results showed reduction in follow-up frequency had no adverse effect on: QoL (6 studies, n = 920), DFS (1 trial, n = 472) or OS (1 trial, n = 472), but improved cost-effectiveness (1 trial, n = 472). Four RCTs specifically examined follow-up on-demand versus scheduled follow-up visits and found no statistically significant differences in QoL (n = 544).

CONCLUSION

While no evidence-based guidelines suggest that follow-up of EBC patients improves DFS or OS, routinely scheduled in-person assessment is common. RCT data suggests that reduced frequency of follow-up has no adverse effects.

Pregnancy in Breast Cancer Survivors

Safety of pregnancy occurring after breast cancer treatment has been studied largely, but it is still debatable. These studies have generally showed that overall and disease-free survival in breast cancer survivors with subsequent pregnancy is not less than those without future pregnancy . Also, breast cancer survivors treated with chemotherapy , radiation therapy, or both had no increased risk of congenital anomalies, single gene disorders, or chromosomal syndromes in their offspring. However, it appears that the incidence of preterm labor, low birth weight, and fetal anomalies is higher in these cases.These issues as well as safe time interval from breast cancer treatment to pregnancy , safe contraceptive method after breast cancer, counseling about pregnancy in survivors, and how to follow up the patient for breast cancer recurrence during pregnancy are discussed in this chapter.

Survivorship care for cancer patients in primary versus secondary care: a systematic review

Background

Cancer survivorship care is traditionally performed in secondary care. Primary care is often involved in cancer management and could therefore play a more prominent role.

Purpose

To assess outcomes of cancer survivorship care in primary versus secondary care.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. All original studies on cancer survivorship care in primary versus secondary care were included. A narrative synthesis was used for three distinctive outcomes: (1) clinical, (2) patient-reported, and (3) costs.

Results

Sixteen studies were included: 7 randomized trials and 9 observational studies. Meta-analyses were not feasible due to heterogeneity. Most studies reported on solid tumors, like breast (N = 7) and colorectal cancers (N = 3). Clinical outcomes were reported by 10 studies, patient-reported by 11, and costs by 4. No important differences were found on clinical and patient-reported outcomes when comparing primary- with secondary-based care. Some differences were seen relating to the content and quality of survivorship care, such as guideline adherence and follow-up tests, but there was no favorite strategy. Survivorship care in primary care was associated with lower societal costs.

Conclusions

Overall, cancer survivorship care in primary care had similar effects on clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with secondary care, while resulting in lower costs.

Implications for cancer survivors

Survivorship care in primary care seems feasible. However, since the design and outcomes of studies differed, conclusive evidence for the equivalence of survivorship care in primary care is still lacking. Ongoing studies will help provide better insights.

Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital- or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted.

Barriers to implementation of stratified care in primary biliary cholangitis: a scoping exercise

Patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) can be stratified into low-risk and high-risk groups based on their response to treatment. Newly published guidelines from the British Society of Gastroenterology suggest low-risk patients can be managed substantially in primary care. This represents a shift from existing practice and makes assumptions about service capacity and the willingness of both patients and health care practitioners (HCPs) to make this change. The aim of this paper is to identify possible barriers to the implementation of these new care pathways through review of the PBC-specific literature and by identifying the experiences of patients and HCPs managing a different condition with comparable patients and disease characteristics. Searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were undertaken. Within the existing PBC literature there is little data surrounding stakeholder perspectives on place of care. Review of the breast cancer literature highlights a number of barriers to change including primary care practitioner knowledge and work load, communication between healthcare settings, and the significance of the established doctor-patient relationship. Further research is needed to establish the extent to which these barriers may surface when changing PBC care pathways, and the actions required to overcome them.

Opportunities for personalised follow-up care among patients with breast cancer: A scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions

INTRODUCTION

Current follow-up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimally meet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow-up to explore the potential for personalised care.

METHODS

Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow-up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies were included in the full-text analysis. Four decision categories were identified: "surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer; consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence-risk reduction by anti-hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer." There was little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti-hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow-up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved.

CONCLUSION

Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow-up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow-up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients.

Analysis of patient-detected breast cancer recurrence

BACKGROUND

After primary surgical resection, breast cancer survivors regularly undergo surveillance using multiple modalities to detect recurrences.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to determine how breast cancer recurrences were detected in our sample population of breast cancer survivors. We hypothesize that the majority of recurrences are patient-detected.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study evaluating patients with a detected breast cancer recurrence between 2010 and 2015. Patients were analyzed by initial detection modality (patient versus clinician versus imaging). Other variables of interest included insurance status, ambulation capability, living situation, age at diagnosis and recurrence, and time to recurrence. Statistical methods included chi-square tests, log-rank tests, and analysis of variance.

RESULTS

115 patients were identified with a recurrence (mean age 61 years). 88 (77%) recurrences were patient-detected, 14 (12%) were detected by imaging, and 13 (11%) were clinician-detected (chi-square goodness of fit test p < 0.001). Median time to recurrence was 4 years in the patient-detection group compared to 3 for the clinician group and 2 for imaging detection (log-rank test p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

While the majority of recurrences were patient-detected, these were detected later and at a more advanced clinical stage. This could represent an opportunity to enhance outcomes by empowering patient detection strategies.

A better model of care after surgery for early endometrial cancer - Comprehensive needs assessment and clinical handover to a woman's general practitioner

BACKGROUND

Endometrial cancer is the most common invasive gynaecological cancer in Australia. Despite the fact that review after treatment of early endometrial cancer has not been shown to detect recurrent disease, practice at several hospitals brings women back for specialist hospital review for 5 years after definitive cancer surgery.

AIM

Implement an improved model of follow-up care following hospital treatment for early endometrial cancer.

EVALUATION METHODS

Quantitative and qualitative.

RESULTS

Seventy-three of the eligible 81 women undertook the model of care. All general practitioners (GPs) agreed to follow-up care. Thirty-one women (42%) and 37 GPs (51%) returned surveys. All women found the nurse consultation very useful or useful with 77% reporting making lifestyle changes and 87% found the GP consultation very useful or useful with 72% reporting making lifestyle changes. Eighty-nine percent of GPs found the care plan useful, 94% set up patient recall systems, 79% used the care plan to develop their own care plan, 100% felt confident in providing follow-up care with 91% reporting the care plan and hospital processes improved their confidence. Comparison with the pre-cohort women showed: higher rates of communication at various care points to GPs (from P < 0.001); more referrals (P < 0.001); and a projected decrease of nine hospital doctor appointments per patient.

DISCUSSION

With an increasing number of people surviving cancer, in order to address holistic health needs and maintain tertiary service capacity, general practice will be required to provide more follow-up care. Our model demonstrates an acceptable and quality mechanism for this to occur.

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months

PURPOSE

To compare patient-triggered follow-up (PTFU) for curatively treated colorectal cancer against traditional outpatient follow-up (OPFU).

METHODS

Questionnaires were mailed at four time points over one-year post-treatment to two prospectively-recruited cohorts: A, patients entering follow-up and receiving OPFU pre-implementation of PTFU; B, patients entering follow-up (FU) and receiving either OPFU (B1) or PTFU (B2) post-implementation of PTFU. Bi-variate tests were used to compare patient characteristics and outcomes eight months after entering follow-up (generic and cancer-specific quality of life (QoL), satisfaction). Regression analysis explored associations between follow-up model and outcomes. Resource implications and costs of models were compared.

RESULTS

Patients in Cohort B1 were significantly more likely to have received chemotherapy (p < 0.001), radiotherapy (p < 0.05), and reported poorer QoL (p = 0.001). Having a longstanding co-morbid condition was the most important determinant of QoL (p < 0.001); model of care was not significant. Patients were satisfied with their follow-up care regardless of model. Health service costs were higher in PTFU over the first year CONCLUSIONS: PTFU is acceptable to patients with colorectal cancer and can be considered to be a realistic alternative to OPFU for clinically suitable patients. The initial costs are higher due to provision of a self-management (SM) programme and remote surveillance. Further research is needed to establish long-term outcomes and costs.

Pattern of relapse in low-risk breast cancer patients followed within a community care network

International guidelines have set the frame and methods of patients' surveillance after early breast cancer (BC) treatment. Since 1998, delegation of low-risk BC patients follow-up to nonhospital practitioners has been developed within a care network in the Paris region. We used the Gynecomed care network digital database to describe the characteristics of oncological events which occurred in the cohort, and to assess the quality of BC follow-up in relapsing patients. Events were defined as any local, contralateral, or metastatic recurrence, as well as second cancer or death due to any cause. We developed a ranked evaluation method of our surveillance program. Among the 3019 patients followed in the network, 116 (4.3%) patients had 116 events. Median follow-up was 7.1 years (0-51). First events were local-regional relapses, contralateral BCs, metastatic events, second primaries in respectively 52, 26, 14, 24 cases. During the first 5 years, 68.4% of surveillance visits were performed on time, 13.5% were behind schedule and 18.1% were not performed, while 79.1% of mammographies were performed on time, 7.7% behind schedule, and 13.2% were not performed. On schedule examinations allowed diagnosis of 77% of the local-regional, ipsilateral relapses or contralateral BCs, including 38 (69%) discovered by mammographies and 17 (31%) by clinical examination. A nonhospital practitioner care network is able to comply with good surveillance practices and deliver high quality surveillance, in accordance with international guidelines. Delegation of low-risk BC surveillance to nonhospital practitioners is reliable.

The role of the GP in follow-up cancer care: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study is to explore the role of the general practitioners, family physicians and primary care physicians (GP) in the provision of follow-up cancer care.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE and CINAHL were systematically searched for primary research focussing on the role of the GP from the perspective of GPs and patients. Data were extracted using a standardised form and synthesised using a qualitative descriptive approach.

RESULTS

The initial search generated 6487 articles: 25 quantitative and 33 qualitative articles were included. Articles focused on patients' and GPs' perspectives of the GP role in follow-up cancer care. Some studies reported on the current role of the GP, barriers and enablers to GP involvement from the perspective of the GP and suggestions for future GP roles. Variations in guidelines and practice of follow-up cancer care in the primary health care sector exist. However, GPs and patients across the included studies supported a greater GP role in follow-up cancer care. This included greater support for care coordination, screening, diagnosis and management of physical and psychological effects of cancer and its treatment, symptom and pain relief, health promotion, palliative care and continuing normal general health care provision.

CONCLUSION

While there are variations in guidelines and practice of follow-up cancer care in the primary health care sector, GPs and patients across the reviewed studies supported a greater role by the GP.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Greater GP role in cancer care could improve the quality of patient care for cancer survivors. Better communication between the tertiary sector and GP across the cancer phases would enable clear delineation of roles.

c-Met PET Imaging Detects Early-Stage Locoregional Recurrence of Basal-Like Breast Cancer

Locoregional recurrence of breast cancer poses significant clinical problems because of frequent inoperability once the chest wall is involved. Early detection of recurrence by molecular imaging agents against therapeutically targetable receptors, such as c-Met, would be of potential benefit. The aim of this study was to assess (18)F-AH113804, a peptide-based molecular imaging agent with high affinity for human c-Met, for the detection of early-stage locoregional recurrence in a human basal-like breast cancer model, HCC1954.

METHODS

HCC1954 tumor-bearing xenograft models were established, and (18)F-AH113804 was administered. Distribution of radioactivity was determined via PET at 60 min after radiotracer injection. PET and CT images were acquired 10 d after tumor inoculation, to establish baseline distribution and uptake, and then on selected days after surgical tumor resection. CT images and caliper were used to determine the tumor volume. Radiotracer uptake was assessed by (18)F-AH113804 PET imaging. c-Met expression was assessed by immunofluorescence imaging of tumor samples and correlated with (18)F-AH113804 PET imaging results.

RESULTS

Baseline uptake of (18)F-AH113804, determined in tumor-bearing animals after 10 d, was approximately 2-fold higher in the tumor than in muscle tissue or the contralateral mammary fat pad. The tumor growth rate, determined from CT images, was comparable between the animals with recurrent tumors, with detection of tumors of low volume (<10 mm(3)) only possible by day 20 after tumor resection. (18)F-AH113804 PET detected local tumor recurrence as early as 6 d after surgery in the recurrent tumor-bearing animals and exhibited significantly higher (18)F-AH113804 uptake (in comparison to mammary fatty tissue), with a target-to-background (muscle) ratio of approximately 3:1 (P < 0.01). The c-Met expression of individual resected tumor samples, determined by immunofluorescence, correlated with the respective (18)F-AH113804 imaging signals (r = 0.82, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

(18)F-AH113804 PET provides a new diagnostic tool for the detection of c-Met-expressing primary tumor and has potential utility for the detection of locoregional recurrence from an early stage.

How do I follow patients with early breast cancer after completing adjuvant therapy

OPINION STATEMENT

With improvements in the detection and treatment of breast cancer, more women are surviving after diagnosis. Patients who complete adjuvant therapy require ongoing follow-up to manage toxicities, to detect recurrences early, and to provide ongoing physical and psychosocial support. Routine surveillance should be implemented, with attention to educating patients about symptoms of recurrence, such as weight loss, cough, and bone pain. An intensive surveillance strategy with the routine use of laboratory and radiographic studies does not improve outcomes and raises the cost of follow-up. Patients should have annual mammograms in conjunction with physical exam and history at appropriate intervals that increase the farther out patients are from treatment. Attention also should be focused on other routine health maintenance and cancer screening, such as colonoscopy, gynecologic examinations, and bone health/DEXA scans. In the early posttreatment period, medical oncologists are best equipped to follow these patients. However, as women live longer after a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, transitioning care to a primary care physician or nurse practitioner is appropriate, provided these practitioners are educated about late treatment effects and managing side effects of treatment, which may continue as long as a decade. A multidisciplinary follow-up strategy with excellent communication between providers can ensure safe, convenient, and quality care to the growing population of breast cancer survivors. As the treatment of breast cancer evolves into personalized strategies based on the biologic characteristics of individual tumors, future studies will be needed to determine if a single surveillance strategy is sufficient or if individualized surveillance based on risk can improve outcomes and costs of long-term follow-up care.

Breast cancer "tailored follow-up" in Italian oncology units: a web-based survey

Purpose

Breast cancer follow-up procedures after primary treatment are still a controversial issue. Aim of this study was to investigate, through a web-based survey, surveillance methodologies selected by Italian oncologists in everyday clinical practice.

Methods

Referents of Italian medical oncology units were invited to participate to the study via e-mail through the SurveyMonkey website. Participants were asked how, in their institution, exams of disease staging and follow-up are planned in asymptomatic women and if surveillance continues beyond the 5^th year.

Results

Between February and May 2013, 125 out of 233 (53.6%) invited referents of Italian medical oncology units agreed to participate in the survey. Ninety-seven (77.6%) referents state that modalities of breast cancer follow-up are planned according to the risk of disease progression at diagnosis and only 12 (9.6%) oncology units apply the minimal follow-up procedures according to international guidelines. Minimal follow-up is never applied in high risk asymptomatic women. Ninety-eight (78.4%) oncology units continue follow-up in all patients beyond 5 years.

Conclusions

Our survey shows that 90.4% of participating Italian oncology units declare they do not apply the minimal breast cancer follow-up procedures after primary treatment in asymptomatic women, as suggested by national and international guidelines. Interestingly, about 80.0% of interviewed referents performs the so called “tailored follow-up”, high intensity for high risk, low intensity for low risk patients. There is an urgent need of randomized clinical trials able to determine the effectiveness of risk-based follow-up modalities, their ideal frequency and persistence in time.

Current approaches and challenges in early detection of breast cancer recurrence

Early detection of breast cancer recurrence is a key element of follow-up care and surveillance after completion of primary treatment. The goal is to improve survival by detecting and treating recurrent disease while potentially still curable assuming a more effective salvage surgery and treatment. In this review, we present the current guidelines for early detection of recurrent breast cancer in the adjuvant setting. Emphasis is placed on the multidisciplinary approach from surgery, medical oncology, and radiology with a discussion of the challenges faced within each setting.

The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer

Primary care providers have important roles across the cancer continuum, from encouraging screening and accurate diagnosis to providing care during and after treatment for both the cancer and any comorbid conditions. Evidence shows that higher cancer screening participation rates are associated with greater involvement of primary care. Primary care providers are pivotal in reducing diagnostic delay, particularly in health systems that have long waiting times for outpatient diagnostic services. However, so-called fast-track systems designed to speed up hospital referrals are weakened by significant variation in their use by general practitioners (GPs), and affect the associated conversion and detection rates. Several randomized controlled trials have shown primary care-led follow-up care to be equivalent to hospital-led care in terms of patient wellbeing, recurrence rates and survival, and might be less costly. For primary care-led follow-up to be successful, appropriate guidelines must be incorporated, clear communication must be provided and specialist care must be accessible if required. Finally, models of long-term cancer follow-up are needed that provide holistic care and incorporate management of co-morbid conditions. We discuss all these aspects of primary care, focusing on the most common cancers managed at the GP office-breast, colorectal, prostate, lung and cervical cancers.

Breast cancer follow-up strategies in randomized phase III adjuvant clinical trials: a systematic review

The effectiveness of different breast cancer follow-up procedures to decrease breast cancer mortality are still an object of debate, even if intensive follow-up by imaging modalities is not recommended by international guidelines since 1997. We conducted a systematic review of surveillance procedures utilized, in the last ten years, in phase III randomized trials (RCTs) of adjuvant treatments in early stage breast cancer with disease free survival as primary endpoint of the study, in order to verify if a similar variance exists in the scientific world. Follow-up modalities were reported in 66 RCTs, and among them, minimal and intensive approaches were equally represented, each being followed by 33 (50%) trials. The minimal surveillance regimen is preferred by international and North American RCTs (P = 0.001) and by trials involving more than one country (P = 0.004), with no relationship with the number of participating centers (P = 0.173), with pharmaceutical industry sponsorship (P = 0.80) and with trials enrolling > 1000 patients (P = 0.14). At multivariate regression analysis, only geographic location of the trial was predictive for a distinct follow-up methodology (P = 0.008): Western European (P = 0.004) and East Asian studies (P = 0.010) use intensive follow-up procedures with a significantly higher frequency than international RCTs, while no differences have been detected between North American and international RCTs. Stratifying the studies according to the date of beginning of patients enrollment, before or after 1998, in more recent RCTs the minimal approach is more frequently followed by international and North American RCTs (P = 0.01), by trials involving more than one country (P = 0.01) and with more than 50 participating centers (P = 0.02). It would be highly desirable that in the near future breast cancer follow-up procedures will be homogeneous in RCTs and everyday clinical settings.

Discharge of breast cancer patients to primary care at the end of hospital follow-up: a cross-sectional survey

AIM

The present study explored (a) the discharge of breast cancer patients to primary care by specialists, at the end of hospital follow-up and (b) the experiences and views of general practitioners (GPs) regarding transfer of follow-up to the primary care setting.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was performed by sending a self-administered questionnaire to 960 GPs working in the three northern provinces of the Netherlands. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 949 eligible questionnaires, 502 were returned, providing an adjusted response rate of 53%. In the year before the survey took place, one or more patients aged >60 years, and 5 years after breast-conserving therapy, were discharged to 22% of GPs (n=112) for follow-up. According to 56% of these GPs, transfer of follow-up was communicated by the hospital. The initiative to arrange follow-up visits and mammography appointments was mainly taken by patients. In this survey, 40% of GPs (n=200) were willing to accept exclusive responsibility for follow-up earlier than 5 years after completion of active treatment. Perceived barriers in current and future primary care-based follow-up included: communication with breast cancer specialists, patients' preference for specialist follow-up, GPs' oncology knowledge and skills and the organisation of follow-up in general practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care-based follow-up might be improved if breast cancer specialists discharge patients more actively to their GPs. Survivorship care plans are needed to facilitate communication across the primary/secondary interface and with patients. Training of GPs and developing administrative tools may be helpful in arranging follow-up care and using guidelines in general practice.

Views of breast and colorectal cancer survivors on their routine follow-up care

OBJECTIVE

Our understanding of optimum health care delivery for cancer survivors is limited by the lack of a patient-centred perspective. The objectives of the present study were to explore the views of breast and colorectal cancer survivors on their routine follow-up care, with respect to needs, preferences, and quality of follow-up, and their views on cancer specialist- compared with family physician (fp)-led follow-up care.

METHODS

In Nova Scotia, Canada, 23 cancer survivors (13 breast, 10 colorectal) participated in either a focus group or a one-on-one interview. Participants were asked to reflect upon their lives as cancer survivors and on the type and quality of care and support they received during the follow-up period. Each focus group or interview was transcribed verbatim, and the transcripts were audited and subjected to a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

SIX THEMES WERE IDENTIFIED: My care is my responsibilityHow I receive information on follow-up careI have many care needsI want to be prepared and informedThe role of my fp in my cancer experience and follow-up careThe role of media Survivors often characterized the post-primary treatment experience as lacking in information and preparation for follow-up and providing inadequate support to address many of the care needs prevalent in survivor populations. Despite valuing fp participation in follow-up care, many survivors continued to receive comfort and reassurance from specialist care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings point to the need to implement strategies that better prepare breast cancer and colorectal cancer survivors for post-treatment care and that reassure survivors of the ability of their fp to provide quality care during this period.

Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations on the follow-up and management of patients with breast cancer who have completed primary therapy with curative intent.

METHODS

To update the 2006 guideline of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), a systematic review of the literature published from March 2006 through March 2012 was completed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Committee reviewed the evidence to determine whether the recommendations were in need of updating.

RESULTS

There were 14 new publications that met inclusion criteria: nine systematic reviews (three included meta-analyses) and five randomized controlled trials. After its review and analysis of the evidence, the Update Committee concluded that no revisions to the existing ASCO recommendations were warranted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up. Physical examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter. For women who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy. Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed. The use of complete blood counts, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, pelvic ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scans, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination.

Safety and cost-effectiveness of shortening hospital follow-up after breast cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, the first 5 years of follow-up after treatment for breast cancer are carried out in hospital with yearly mammography. After this, for patients aged over 60 years who have undergone mastectomy, there is a shift of care to the National Screening Programme (NSP) for mammography every 2 years. After breast-conserving therapy follow-up is perfomed by the general practitioner (GP), with mammography every second year and physical examination annually. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effects and costs of four different strategies for follow-up after breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

An extended and validated simulation model for breast cancer follow-up was used. The current guidelines for follow-up (baseline strategy) and three less intensive follow-up strategies were evaluated. The main outcome measure was the detection rate of small tumours (2 cm or smaller) and associated costs for each strategy.

RESULTS

Shortening the follow-up time in hospital by shifting care to the NSP or GP after 2 years instead of 5 years of hospital follow-up, lowering the age of referral to the NSP or GP from 60 to 50 years, and termination of annual physical examination by the GP after hospital follow-up did not decrease the detection of small tumours. In addition, a substantial decrease in costs was observed with simplified follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Decreasing hospital follow-up time, lowering the age of referral to the NSP or GP, and termination of annual physical examinations would lead to a substantial reduction in costs while maintaining the possibility of detecting small breast cancers.

Optimizing the Frequency of Follow-Up Visits for Patients Treated for Localized Primary Cutaneous Melanoma

Purpose

To develop more evidence-based guidelines for the frequency of patient follow-up after treatment of localized (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage I or II) melanoma.

Methods

We used data from Melanoma Institute Australia on an inception cohort of 3,081 consecutive patients first diagnosed with stage I or II melanoma between January 1985 and December 2009. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models were used to characterize the time course and predictors for recurrence and new primaries. We modeled the delay in diagnosis of recurrence or new primary as well as the number of monitoring visits required using two monitoring schedules: first, according to 2008 Australian and New Zealand guidelines and, second, with fewer visits, especially for those at lowest risk of recurrence.

Results

For every 1,000 patients beginning follow-up, 229 developed recurrence and 61 developed new primary within 10 years. There was only a small difference in modeled delay in diagnosis (extra 44.9 and 9.6 patients per 1,000 for recurrence and new primary, respectively, with delay greater than 2 months) using a schedule that requires far fewer visits (3,000 fewer visits per 1,000 patients) than recommended by current guidelines. AJCC substage was the most important predictor of recurrence, whereas age and date of primary diagnosis were important predictors of developing new primary.

Conclusion

By providing less intensive monitoring, more efficient follow-up strategies are possible. Fewer visits with a more focused approach may address the needs of patients and clinicians to detect recurrent or new melanoma.

Patients' needs and preferences in routine follow-up for early breast cancer; an evaluation of the changing role of the nurse practitioner

BACKGROUND

In evaluating follow-up of early breast cancer, patients' views on care are important. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the introduction of nurse practitioners (NPs) in a breast cancer unit on patients' informational needs, preferences and attitude towards follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was performed among two groups in 2005. Group A (n = 89) consisted of patients operated before, and group B (n = 100) after the introduction of a breast cancer unit (respectively in 1998-1999 and 2001-2004).

RESULTS

Response was 72% in group A and 84% in group B. Median follow-up was 69 (54-86) and 33 (0-57) months, respectively. Aspects highly appreciated by patients in both groups were lifetime follow-up, information about prognosis, life style and additional investigations. Important discussion subjects were fatigue, pain, genetic factors, prevention and arm function/lymph-oedema. Less valued aspects were information about peers, conversations with psychologists or social workers, breast reconstruction, and acceptation by family members. The informational needs and preferences did not differ statistically significantly between both groups. In group B, communication with the caregiver was valued higher and more patients indicated that the caregiver took the time needed. More patients in group B indicated that follow-up could be performed by the NP. Duration of follow-up correlated with preferred frequency, not with informational needs in follow-up, only young age increased these needs.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of this retrospective study, we conclude that while expectations and informational needs did not change with the introduction of a NP to the standard care, patient satisfaction increased and communication and time taken were appreciated more.

Professionals' opinion on follow-up in breast cancer patients; perceived purpose and influence of patients' risk factors

AIM

To provide insight into professionals' opinions on breast cancer follow-up to facilitate implementation of new follow-up strategies. The study focuses on current practice, purpose and perceived effects, and preferred frequency and duration of follow-up.

DESIGN

A 29-item questionnaire on professionals' demographics, current practice, opinion on the current guideline, preferences in frequency and duration of tailored follow-up, and the purpose and perceived effects of follow-up was sent to 633 Dutch professionals.

RESULTS

The current national guideline is followed by 81% of respondents. All different specialists are involved in follow-up. Sixty-nine percent of respondents' report nurse practitioners to be involved in follow-up. When asked for tailored follow-up, professionals indicate more factors for increased follow-up (age<40 years, pT3-4 tumour, pN2-3, treatment related morbidity, and psychosocial support), than for reduced schedules (age >70 years and DCIS histology). Alternative forms of follow-up are not endorsed by >90% of respondents. Detection of a new primary tumour of the breast is considered the most important purpose of follow-up (98%), 57% still indicates detecting metastases as a goal.

CONCLUSIONS

Professionals tend towards longer and more intensive follow-up than the current guideline for a large group of patients. Limitations and developments in follow-up need to be considered to facilitate alternative follow-up strategies.

Towards a personalised approach to aftercare: a review of cancer follow-up in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Due to growth in cancer survivorship and subsequent resource limitations, the current UK position of follow-up services is unsustainable. With people living longer after a cancer diagnosis, supported self-management for ongoing treatment-related chronic conditions is a fundamental component of aftercare services. Alternative models to traditional hospital aftercare require consideration in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

'Evidence to Inform the Cancer Reform Strategy: The Clinical Effectiveness of Follow-Up Services after Treatment for Cancer' (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2007) has been updated using a number of quality-controlled databases. Correspondence with experts was also sought to identify current initiatives.

RESULT

The review highlights a shift towards patient empowerment via individualised and group education programmes aimed at increasing survivor's ability to better manage their condition and the effects of treatment, allowing for self-referral or rapid access to health services when needed. The role of specialist nurses as key facilitators of supportive aftercare is emphasised, as is a move towards technology-based aftercare in the form of telephone or web-based services.

CONCLUSIONS

The challenge will be replacing traditional clinic follow-up with alternative methods in a cost-effective way that is either as equally effective, or more so. To establish this, more rigorous trials are needed, with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up assessments.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Increasing patient confidence to initiate follow-up specific to their needs is likely to increase the workload of primary care providers, who will need training for this.

Telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: views and experiences of patients and specialist breast care nurses

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To explore the views of patients and specialist breast care nurses on telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND

A recent randomised controlled trial demonstrated that nurse-led telephone follow-up led to high levels of patient satisfaction with no physical or psychological detriment. This study aimed to explore in more detail the views of patients randomised to telephone follow-up and the nurses who conducted telephone appointments.

DESIGN

Qualitative.

METHOD

Individual interviews with 28 patients and four specialist breast care nurses. Content analysis was used to analyse the interview data.

RESULTS

Telephone follow-up was convenient for patients and provided continuity of care. Speaking on the telephone was perceived as a more 'normal' activity than attending hospital outpatient clinics. A structured approach was appreciated, instilling feelings of confidence that all questions had been asked and no errors had been made. Specialist nurses emphasised the high level of skill required to deliver the intervention and perceived that the telephone approach was well able to meet the individual needs of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive views on telephone follow-up were reported. An experienced and skilled practitioner, with effective communication skills, is required to deliver the intervention and a period of training is recommended. Nurse-led telephone interventions have a broader applicability to other disease conditions, although more work is needed to develop appropriate interventions and evaluate their effectiveness.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nurses at advanced levels of practice are uniquely placed to deliver such complex interventions. However, a period of initial training with effective peer support and channels for ongoing feedback are essential for administering an intervention that relies on audio rather than visual cues.

Risk stratification as a means of reducing the burden of follow-up after completion of initial treatment for breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Little evidence exists regarding the optimum frequency or duration of follow-up for patients with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a risk-stratified follow-up programme.

METHODS

Patients treated surgically for primary breast cancer from January 2000 to September 2006 were recorded on a BASO database. Follow-up was stratified according to risk of relapse as determined by the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI). Patients were assigned to high, moderate or low risk groups. The date of recurrence, time from primary diagnosis and site of relapse were obtained from the database. Review of case notes was used to confirm the method of detection.

RESULTS

1303 women had surgery for primary breast cancer in the study period. Median follow-up was 40 months. Overall survival rate was 96.9% (90.4% high, 97.3% moderate, 99.5% low). Disease free survival was 94.1% (84.1% high, 94.7% moderate, 98.1% low). Seventy-seven recurrences were detected with 39 (51%) in the high risk group, 27 (35%) in the moderate risk group and 11 (14%) in the low risk group. Detection rate at a scheduled appointment was 0.27% overall (low risk 0.14%, moderate risk 0.27%, high risk 0.45%).

CONCLUSIONS

NPI correlates with risk of recurrent disease. Scheduled follow-up yielded few recurrences, suggesting early discharge with open access to clinics could be a safe alternative. This type of follow-up may reduce demand on specialist clinics without significantly affecting patient care or overall survival.

Primary Care Physicians’ Involvement in the Cancer Care of Older Long-Term Survivors

Objective: This study investigated survivors’ reports of primary care physicians’ (PCPs) involvement in three key cancer survivorship activities: discussing cancer history, whether the PCP initiated discussions, and whether discussions led to tests/procedures. Method: The sample included 215 older survivors whose health care was maintained in primary care. Logistic regression explored predictors of the three activities, including demographics, cancer characteristics, survivor/PCP association characteristics, health characteristics, and psychosocial well-being. Results: Nearly two thirds of survivors indicated discussing cancer history; most said discussions were PCP initiated and nearly half said discussions resulted in tests/procedures. Predictors of discussing cancer history were African American race and more comorbid conditions. PCP-initiated discussions were related to older age, surviving breast cancer, more years in the PCP’s practice, and having less general health worry. The tests/procedures model was not significant. Conclusions: As older survivors focused more on other health concerns, PCPs remained attentive to cancer issues, prompting discussions about history and ordering tests.

Mammographic surveillance in women with a personal history of breast cancer: how accurate? How effective?

We review the accuracy and potential effect of mammography in surveillance of women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). A literature review was performed to identify studies on screening mammography or breast surveillance reporting data on the accuracy or detection capability of mammography, or the effect of early detection of second breast cancers, in women with a PHBC. Evidence on mammography screening in women with PHBC comes from non-randomised studies, and is generally limited by several factors including design limitations. The proportion of ipsilateral breast recurrences detected with mammography ranges between 50% and 80% (including cancers detected also on clinical examination) but is lower at 8%-51% for mammography-only detection. Mammography detects approximately 45%-90% of contralateral cancers. There is evidence of a potential benefit for asymptomatic/early-detected second breast cancers (range of estimated hazard ratios: 0.10-0.86) relative to symptomatic or clinical-detection, in various surveillance strategies that include mammography, however these estimates are likely to have overestimated screening benefit. New evaluations of screening women with a PHBC are needed from screening programs or population datasets, to provide comprehensive measures of screening accuracy and outcomes in this population of women.

Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancer follow-up has traditionally been undertaken in secondary care, but there are increasing calls to deliver it in primary care.

AIM

To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary care follow-up of cancer patients, determine the effectiveness of the integration of primary care in routine hospital follow-up, and evaluate the impact of patient-initiated follow-up on primary care.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Systematic review.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care settings.

METHOD

A search was carried out of 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. The review included comparative studies or economic evaluations of primary versus secondary care follow-up, hospital follow-up with formal primary care involvement versus conventional hospital follow-up, and hospital follow-up versus patient-initiated or minimal follow-up if the study reported the impact on primary care.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference for patient wellbeing, recurrence rate, survival, recurrence-related serious clinical events, diagnostic delay, or patient satisfaction. GP-led breast cancer follow-up was cheaper than hospital follow-up. Intensified primary health care resulted in increased home-care nurse contact, and improved discharge summary led to increased GP contact. Evaluation of patient-initiated or minimal follow-up found no statistically significant impact on the number of GP consultations or cancer-related referrals.

CONCLUSION

Weak evidence suggests that breast cancer follow-up in primary care is effective. Interventions improving communication between primary and secondary care could lead to greater GP involvement. Discontinuation of formal follow-up may not increase GP workload. However, the quality of the data in general was poor, and no firm conclusions can be reached.

Follow-up care for cancer survivors: the views of clinicians

Background:

Evidence for the efficacy of late effects surveillance in adult cancer survivors is lacking and there is little agreement among clinicians on appropriate follow-up care.

Methods:

We report the views of both cancer experts and general practitioners (GPs) on long-term follow-up provision for cancer survivors, focussing on the 18–45 years age group. A total of 421 cancer experts (36% haematologists, 33% oncologists, 18% surgeons, 10% nurses, 2% other) and 54 GPs responded to a structured online survey. Reasons for follow-up care (clinical or supportive); advantages and disadvantages of follow-up in primary care; current practice; and resources required for a quality follow-up service were assessed.

Results:

Clinicians valued clinical reasons for follow-up more highly than supportive reasons (P<0.001). Learning more about late effects and checking for cancer recurrence were rated as the most important reasons for follow-up by cancer experts and GPs. A total of 85% of cancer specialists hold follow-up consultations alongside patients on active treatment. Cancer experts agreed that primary care follow-up would increase their availability for acute oncological care, but reduce information on late effects. The most important resource to provide a quality follow-up service was specialist nursing support (91%).

Conclusions:

Follow-up guidelines that include late effects surveillance are needed. Where and who should deliver this care requires further debate.

Follow-up care for cancer survivors: views of the younger adult

Background:

Since the launch of the National Cancer Survivorship Initiative, there has been a surge of interest surrounding the value and organisation of long-term follow-up care after cancer treatment. We report the views of 309 adult cancer survivors (aged 18–45 years) on provision of follow-up and preferences for care.

Methods:

A total of 207 survivors completed questionnaires before and after routine consultant-led follow-up appointments and 102 were recruited by post. Measures of health status (including late effects, perceived vulnerability to late effects and quality of life), reasons for attending follow-up (clinical and supportive), issues to be discussed at follow-up and preferences for different models of care were assessed.

Results:

In all, 59% of the survivors reported experiencing one or more cancer-related health problems. Survivors rated clinical reasons for attending follow-up more highly than supportive reasons (P<0.001), although nutritional advice and counselling were considered useful (60 and 47%, respectively). Those still receiving scheduled follow-up appointments did not discuss the range of issues intended with ‘late effects’ and ‘fertility’, which were particularly under-discussed. Hospital rather than GP follow-up was more highly rated.

Conclusion:

Survivors value the clinical reassurance currently provided by consultant-led care. However, supportive needs are not systematically addressed. Multi-disciplinary services are recommended to meet supportive needs in addition to clinical care.

Nurse-led vs. conventional physician-led follow-up for patients with cancer: systematic review

AIM

This paper is a report of a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led follow-up for patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND

As cancer survivorship increases, conventional follow-up puts a major burden on outpatient services. Nurse-led follow-up is a promising alternative. Data sources. Searches were conducted covering a period from inception to February 2007 of 19 electronic databases, seven online trial registries, five conference proceedings reference lists of previous reviews and included studies.

REVIEW METHODS

Standard systematic review methodology was used. Comparative studies and economic evaluations of nurse-led vs. physician-led follow-up were eligible. Studies comparing different types of nurse-led follow-up were excluded. Any cancer was considered; any outcome measure included.

RESULTS

Four randomised controlled trials were identified, two including cost analyses. There were no statistically significant differences in survival, recurrence or psychological morbidity. One study showed better HRQL measures for nurse-led follow-up, but one showed no difference, two showed a statistically significant difference for patient satisfaction, but two did not. Patients with lung cancer were more satisfied with nurse-led telephone follow-up and more were able to die at home. Patients with breast cancer thought patient-initiated follow-up convenient, but found conventional follow-up more reassuring. One study showed the cost of nurse-led follow-up to be less than that of physician-led follow-up, but no statistical comparison was made.

CONCLUSION

Patients appeared satisfied with nurse-led follow-up. Patient-initiated or telephone follow-up could be practical alternatives to conventional care. However, well-conducted research is needed before equivalence to physician-led follow-up can be assured in terms of survival, recurrence, patient well-being and cost-effectiveness.