Nurse or surgeon follow-up after rectal cancer: a randomized trial

Quality of life and symptom burden after rectal cancer surgery: a randomised controlled trial comparing patient-led versus standard follow-up

PURPOSE

After curatively intended rectal cancer (RC) surgery, new follow-up strategies are warranted, seeking more individualised care and targeting health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional outcomes. The FURCA trial aimed to investigate the effect of patient-led follow-up on HRQoL and symptom burden 3 years after surgery.

METHODS

RC patients from four Danish centres were randomised 1:1 to intervention (patient-led follow-up with patient education and self-referral to a specialist nurse) or control (standard follow-up with five routine doctor visits). Patients in both groups had a computed tomography (CT) at 1 and 3 years. The primary outcome (HRQoL) was assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - colorectal (FACT-C) score (Ward et al. in Qual Life Res. 8(3):181-95, 18). Secondary outcomes were functional measures, patient involvement and satisfaction and cancer recurrence at 3 years.

RESULTS

From Feb 2016 to Aug 2018, 336 patients were included of whom 248 completed 3 years of follow-up. Between-group differences were found neither for the primary endpoint, nor for functional outcomes. The recurrence rate did not differ between the groups. Patient involvement and satisfaction were higher in the intervention group with statistical significance in almost half of the items.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no effect on HRQoL and symptom burden from patient-led follow-up, although it may improve patient-perceived involvement and satisfaction.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The findings in this study suggest that patient-led follow-up is a more tailored approach to meet cancer survivors' needs and might improve their ability to cope with survivorship.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

R97-A6511-14-S23.

Functional outcomes following anterior resection for colorectal cancer: a needs assessment and proposal of a nurse-led remote management algorithm

AIM

With the rise of structured, remote follow-up of colorectal cancers, there is the potential risk of underdiagnosing and undermanaging low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). This cohort study aims to determine the rate of LARS and its patterns of care, with the aim of generating a risk-stratified management algorithm that can be employed for nurse-led follow-up.

METHOD

Patients who underwent elective anterior resection for the management of colorectal cancer between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2021 were sent quality-of-life questionnaires (EORTC-QLQ-CR29 and LARS score) and surveyed for LARS symptoms and management utilized.

RESULTS

Out of 70 patients who completed questionnaires, 71.4% had LARS and 42.9% had major LARS. The international Delphi consensus definition identified more patients (n = 50) with LARS than the LARS score (n = 41). Tumours located <8 cm from the anal verge, ULAR, and temporary stoma were predictive of major LARS on univariate analysis. However, only temporary stoma was predictive for LARS (OR 7.89 (1.15-53.95), P = 0.035) and majors LARS (8.14 (1.79-37.01), P = 0.007) on multivariate analysis. Forty-four percent of patients with LARS did not have input from any health professional for this condition. Consultation with specialist allied health and/or colorectal surgeons ranged from 4% to 22%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights that with the current remote follow-up system focused on cancer outcomes a significant proportion of patients with LARS are overlooked, resulting in the underutilization of relevant health professionals and management options. We propose a nurse-led management algorithm to address this issue while still minimizing surgical outpatient load.

Intensive follow-up vs conventional follow-up for patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The frequency and content of follow-up strategies remain controversial for colorectal cancer (CRC), and scheduled follow-ups have limited value.

AIM

To compare intensive and conventional follow-up strategies for the prognosis of non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent using a meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception until April 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The hazard ratio, relative risk, and 95% confidence interval were used to calculate survival and categorical data, and pooled analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Additional exploratory analyses were performed for sensitivity, subgroups, and publication bias.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs involving 8533 patients with CRC were selected for the final analysis. Intensive follow-up may be superior to conventional follow-up in improving overall survival, but this difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, intensive follow-up was associated with an increased incidence of salvage surgery compared to conventional follow-up. In addition, there was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence between intensive and conventional follow-up strategies, whereas intensive follow-up was associated with a reduced risk of interval recurrence compared to conventional follow-up. Finally, the effects of intensive and conventional follow-up strategies differed when stratified by tumor location and follow-up duration.

CONCLUSION

Intensive follow-up may have a beneficial effect on the overall survival of patients with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent.

Comparison of anal function and quality of life after conformal sphincter preservation operation and intersphincteric resection of very low rectal cancer: a multicenter, retrospective, case-control analysis

PURPOSE

Conformal sphincter preservation operation (CSPO) is a sphincter preservation operation for very low rectal cancers. Compared to intersphincteric resection (ISR), CSPO retains more dentate line and distal rectal wall, and also avoids damaging the nerves in the intersphincteric space. This study aimed to compare the postoperative anal function and quality of life between the CSPO and ISR.

METHOD

Patients with low rectal cancer undergoing CSPO (n = 117) and ISR (n = 66) were included from Changhai and Huashan Hospital, respectively, between 2011 and 2020. A visual analog scale (range 0-10) was utilized to evaluate satisfaction with anal function and quality of life. The anal function was evaluated with Wexner scores and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. Quality of life was evaluated with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38.

RESULTS

The CSPO group had more male patients (65.8% vs. 50%, p = 0.042), more preoperative chemoradiotherapy (33.3% vs. 10.6%, p < 0.001), lower tumor position (3.45 ± 1.13 vs. 4.24 ± 0.86 cm, p < 0.001), and more postoperative chemotherapy (65% vs. 13.6%, p < 0.001) compared to the ISR group. In addition, CSPO patients had shorter postoperative stay (6.63 ± 2.53 vs. 7.85 ± 4.73 days, p = 0.003) and comparable stoma reversal rates within 1 year after surgery (92.16% vs. 96.97%, p = 0.318). Multivariable analysis showed that CSPO significantly contributed to higher satisfaction with anal function (beta = 1.752, 95% CI 0.776-2.728) and with quality of life (beta = 1.219, 95% CI 0.374-2.064), but not to Wexner, LARS score, or EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38.

CONCLUSION

CSPO improved the satisfaction with anal function and quality of life but utilized more preoperative chemoradiotherapy. CSPO may be an alternative choice for patients with very low rectal cancers in better physical health and with higher requirements for anal function and quality of life.

Patients' experience of teleconsultations in the UK

BACKGROUND

Teleconsultations were introduced for cancer surgery follow-up to ease pressure on hospital services and facilitate patients' access to those services. There is limited evidence on patients' perceptions of this swift shift in service provision.

AIMS

The purpose of this qualitative systematic review was to explore patient experiences of teleconsultations within NHS cancer surgery follow-up services to better understand patient perceptions, satisfaction and acceptability of teleconsultations within cancer services.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched up to 1 July 2022. Qualitative studies were synthesised using the Braun and Clarke framework.

FINDINGS

There were three overarching themes: accessibility; patient experience; and consultation.

CONCLUSION

Teleconsultations were widely accepted among cancer surgical patients. However, there were reports of a lack of rapport building and emotional support because of the absence of visual cues and patient camaraderie.

Surveillance strategies following curative resection and non-operative approach of rectal cancer: How and how long? Review of current recommendations

Different follow-up strategies are available for patients with rectal cancer following curative treatment. A combination of biochemical testing and imaging investigation, associated with physical examination are commonly used. However, there is currently no consensus about the types of tests to perform, the timing of the testing, and even the need for follow-up at all has been questioned. The aim of this study was to review the evidence of the impact of different follow-up tests and programs in patients with non-metastatic disease after definitive treatment of the primary. A literature review was performed of studies published on MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to November 2022. Current published guidelines from the most authoritative specialty societies were also reviewed. According to the follow-up strategies available, the office visit is not efficient but represents the only way to maintain direct contact with the patient and is recommended by all authoritative specialty societies. In colorectal cancer surveillance, carcinoembryonic antigen represents the only established tumor marker. Abdominal and chest computed tomography scan is recommended considering that the liver and lungs are the most common sites of recurrence. Since local relapse in rectal cancer is higher than in colon cancer, endoscopic surveillance is mandatory. Different follow-up regimens have been published but randomized comparisons and meta-analyses do not allow to determine whether intensive or less intensive follow-up had any significant influence on survival and recurrence detection rate. The available data do not allow the drawing of final conclusions on the ideal surveillance methods and the frequency with which they should be applied. It is very useful and urgent for clinicians to identify a cost-effective strategy that allows early identification of recurrence with a special focus for high-risk patients and patients undergoing a “watch and wait” approach.

Nurse's Roles in Colorectal Cancer Prevention: A Narrative Review

The objective of this paper is to investigate the different roles of nurses as members of healthcare teams at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of colorectal cancer prevention. The research team conducted a narrative review of studies involving the role of nurses at different levels of colorectal cancer prevention, which included a variety of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, Magiran, the Scientific Information Database (SID), Noormags, and the Islamic Science Citation (ISC) databases from ab initio until 2021. A total of 117 studies were reviewed. Nurses' roles were classified into three levels of prevention. At the primary level, the most important role related to educating people to prevent cancer and reduce risk factors. At the secondary level, the roles consisted of genetic counseling, stool testing, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, biopsy and screening test follow-ups, and chemotherapy intervention, while at the tertiary level, their roles were made up of pre-and post-operative care to prevent further complications, rehabilitation, and palliative care. Nurses at various levels of prevention care also act as educators, coordinators, performers of screening tests, follow-up, and provision of palliative and end-of-life care. If these roles are not fulfilled at some levels of colorectal cancer, it is generally due to the lack of knowledge and competence of nurses or the lack of instruction and legal support for them. Nurses need sufficient clinical knowledge and experience to perform these roles at all levels.

Follow-up strategy and survival for five common cancers: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intensive follow-up after curative intent treatment for five common solid tumours, in terms of survival and treatment of recurrences.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted, identifying comparative studies on follow-up for colorectal, lung, breast, upper gastro-intestinal and prostate cancer. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and treatment of recurrences. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, with particular focus on studies at low risk of bias.

RESULTS

Fourteen out of 63 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias (8 colorectal, 4 breast, 0 lung, 1 upper gastro-intestinal, 1 prostate). These studies showed no significant impact of intensive follow-up on OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) for colorectal (0.99; 0.92-1.06), breast 1.06 (0.92-1.23), upper gastro-intestinal (0.78; 0.51-1.19) and prostate cancer (1.00; 0.86-1.16). No impact on CSS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) was found for colorectal cancer (0.94; 0.77-1.16). CSS was not reported for other cancer types. Intensive follow-up increased the rate of curative treatment (relative risk; 95% confidence interval) for colorectal cancer recurrences (1.30; 1.05-1.61), but not for upper gastro-intestinal cancer recurrences (0.92; 0.47-1.81). For the other cancer types, no data on treatment of recurrences was available in low risk studies.

CONCLUSION

For colorectal and breast cancer, high quality studies do not suggest an impact of intensive follow-up strategies on survival. Colorectal cancer recurrences are more often treated locally after intensive follow-up. For other cancer types evaluated, limited high quality research on follow-up is available.

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

Objective: To provide recommendations for preferred models of follow-up care for stage I-IV colorectal (CRC) cancer survivors in Ontario; to identify signs and symptoms of potential recurrence and when to investigate; and to evaluate patient information and support needs during the post-treatment survivorship period. Methods: Consistent with the Program in Evidence-Based Medicine’s standardized approach, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO databases were systematically searched. The authors drafted recommendations and revised them based on the comments from internal and external reviewers. Results: Four guidelines, three systematic reviews, three randomized controlled trials, and three cohort studies provided evidence to develop recommendations. Conclusions: Colorectal cancer follow-up care is complex and requires multidisciplinary, coordinated care delivered by the cancer specialist, primary care provider, and allied health professionals. While there is limited evidence to support a shared care model for follow-up, this approach is deemed to be best suited to meet patient needs; however, the roles and responsibilities of care providers need to be clearly defined, and patients need to know when and how to contact them. Although there is insufficient evidence to recommend any individual or combination of signs or symptoms as strong predictor(s) of recurrence, patients should be educated about these and know which care provider to contact if they develop any new or concerning symptoms. Psychosocial support and empathetic, effective, and coordinated communication are most valued by patients for their post-treatment follow-up care. Continuing professional education should emphasize the importance of communication skills and coordination of communication between the patient, family, and healthcare providers.

A Novel Remote Follow-Up Tool Based on an Instant Messaging/Social Media App for the Management of Patients With Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Pilot Prospective Self-Control Study

Background

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a common functional disorder that develops after patients with rectal cancer undergo anal preservation surgery. Common approaches to assess the symptoms of patients with LARS are often complex and time-consuming. Instant messaging/social media has great application potential in LARS follow-up, but has been underdeveloped.

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare data between a novel instant messaging/social media follow-up system and a telephone interview in patients with LARS and to analyze the consistency of the instant messaging/social media platform.

Methods

Patients with R0 resectable rectal cancer who accepted several defecation function visits via the instant messaging/social media platform and agreed to a telephone interview after the operation using the same questionnaire including subjective questions and LARS scores were included. Differences between the 2 methods were analyzed in pairs and the diagnostic consistency of instant messaging/social media was calculated based on telephone interview results.

Results

In total, 21 questionnaires from 15 patients were included. The positive rates of defecation dissatisfaction, life restriction, and medication use were 10/21 (48%), 11/21 (52%), and 8/21 (38%) for telephone interview and 10/21 (48%), 13/21 (62%), and 5/21 (24%) for instant messaging/social media, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed between instant messaging/social media and telephone interview in terms of total LARS score (mean 22.4 [SD 11.9] vs mean 24.7 [SD 10.7], P<.21) and LARS categories (Z=–0.264, P=.79); however, instant messaging/social media showed a more negative tendency. The kappa values of 3 subjective questions were 0.618, 0.430, and 0.674, respectively. The total LARS scores were consistent between both groups (Pearson coefficient 0.760, P<.001; category correlation coefficient 0.570, P=.005). Patients with major LARS had highly consistent results, with sensitivity, specificity, kappa value, and P value of 77.8%, 91.7%, 0.704, and .001, respectively.

Conclusions

Instant messaging/social media can be a major LARS screening method. However, further research on information accuracy and user acceptance is needed before implementing a mature system.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03009747; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03009747

Establishing a nurse-led thyroid cancer follow-up clinic

Thyroid cancer is a complex disease requiring management by a large multidisciplinary team. The number of patients with a diagnosis of thyroid cancer is significantly increasing year-on-year, and traditional models of consultant-led follow up are no longer sustainable. Although nurse-led cancer follow-up clinics are becomining increasingly common, thyroid cancer nurse-led follow-up clinics are rare. An excellent understanding of the disease, treatment and management of risk of disease recurrence is essential for safe patient care, and is discussed in this article. The clinic discussed uses the skill set of head and neck nurse specialists, including psychological support, coping strategies for long-term side effects of treatment and non-medical prescribing. A patient survey of the service revealed high levels of patient satisfaction and a desire to continue face-to-face consultations rather than telephone clinics.

Risk factors for developing anorectal dysfunction after anterior resection

BACKGROUND

Anterior resection (AR) may result in defecatory dysfunction and the cause is multifactorial. The aim was to explore if dysfunction could be related to the part of the colon used for anastomosis (sigmoid or descending) and to identify other possible risk factors for bowel dysfunction after AR.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study based on prospectively registered data from a regional registry at the surgical department in Västmanland 1996-2019. Bowel function was registered at 1 year after AR or after stoma reversal. In total, 470 stage I-III rectal cancer patients had AR whereof 412 were included in this study.

RESULTS

Clustering was seen in 57%, incontinence 29%, urgency 22%, and evacuatory dysfunction 16%. The part of the colon used for anastomosis, level of vascular tie, and gender were not significantly associated with defecatory dysfunction. The higher the anastomotic level, the lower the risk of incontinence (OR 0.75; CI 0.63-0.90; p < 0.001) and clustering (OR 0.78; CI 0.67-0.90; p < 0.001). Compared with patients without a loop-ileostomy, an increased risk of clustering (OR 1.89; 1.08-3.31; p = 0.03), incontinence (OR 2.48; 1.29-4.77; p < 0.01), and urgency (OR 4.61; CI 2.02-10.60; p < 0.001) was seen after loop-ileostomy closure. Preoperative radiotherapy had a negative impact on continence and clustering seen mainly in the unadjusted analysis.

CONCLUSION

The part of the colon used for anastomosis was not a significantly associated functional outcome after anterior resection. Low anastomotic level and having had a diverting ileostomy were independent risk factors associated with negative functional outcomes.

Impact of advanced nursing practice through nurse-led clinics in the care of cancer patients: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims at exploring the effectiveness of nurse-led advanced practice for patients with cancer.

METHODS

This review followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. Randomised controlled trials on cancer nurse-led clinics for patient outcomes, costs, service utilisation and other outcomes were included. Databases such as MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychINFO were searched based on MeSH terms. Thematic analysis was used to synthesise results of the included studies.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles were included, published between 2001 and 2019. There were methodological shortcomings with a number of the studies reviewed. Five themes were identified including (1) rationale for developing nurse-led clinics, (2) mode of delivery of nurse-led clinics, (3) the content of nurse-led clinics, (4) exploring patient outcomes and (5) satisfaction with nurse-led clinics.

CONCLUSIONS

The results support the effectiveness of nurse-led clinics in improving self-reported responses such as distress levels, satisfaction, quality of life, depressive symptoms, concerns and vomiting among cancer patients. Following a sound protocol for both the study and the reporting is recommended, and future studies should focus more on costs and effectiveness of different models of care administered by advanced practice nurses. Effectiveness of nurse-led clinics needs further evaluation with stronger trials and wider focus on nursing-sensitive clinical outcomes and costs.

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.

Major differences in follow-up practice of patients with colorectal cancer; results of a national survey in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The precise content and frequency of follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is variable and guideline adherence is low. The aim of this study was to assess the view of colorectal surgeons on their local follow-up schedule and to clarify their opinions about risk-stratification and organ preserving therapies. Equally important, adherence to the Dutch national guidelines was determined.

METHODS

Colorectal surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey about the importance and interval of clinical follow-up, CEA monitoring and the use of imaging modalities. Furthermore, the opinions regarding physical examination, risk-stratification, organ preserving strategies, and follow-up setting were assessed. Data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative analysis methods.

RESULTS

A total of 106 colorectal surgeons from 52 general and 5 university hospitals filled in the survey, yielding a hospital response rate of 74% and a surgeon response rate of 42%. The follow-up of patients with CRC was mainly done by surgeons (71%). The majority of the respondents (68%) did not routinely perform physical examination during follow-up of rectal patients. Abdominal ultrasound was the predominant modality used for detection of liver metastases (77%). Chest X-ray was the main modality for detecting lung metastases (69%). During the first year of follow-up, adherence to the minimal guideline recommendations was high (99-100%). The results demonstrate that, within the framework of the guidelines, some respondents applied a more intensive follow-up and others a less intensive schedule. The majority of the respondents (77%) applied one single follow-up imaging schedule for all patients that underwent treatment with curative intent.

CONCLUSIONS

Dutch colorectal surgeons' adherence to minimal guideline recommendations was high, but within the guideline framework, opinions differed about the required intensity and content of clinical visits, the interval of CEA monitoring, and the importance and frequency of imaging techniques. This national survey demonstrates current follow-up practice throughout the Netherlands and highlights the follow-up differences of curatively treated patients with CRC.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2016.It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer for several years following their curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. Despite this widespread practice, there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed, and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of follow-up programmes (follow-up versus no follow-up, follow-up strategies of varying intensity, and follow-up in different healthcare settings) on overall survival for patients with colorectal cancer treated with curative intent. Secondary objectives are to assess relapse-free survival, salvage surgery, interval recurrences, quality of life, and the harms and costs of surveillance and investigations.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, on 5 April 2109 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index. We also searched reference lists of articles, and handsearched the Proceedings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In addition, we searched the following trials registries: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We contacted study authors. We applied no language or publication restrictions to the search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently determined study eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies, which enrolled 13,216 participants (we included four new studies in this second update). Sixteen out of the 19 studies were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Although the studies varied in setting (general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, or surgeon-led) and 'intensity' of follow-up, there was very little inconsistency in the results.Overall survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04: I² = 18%; high-quality evidence). There were 1453 deaths among 12,528 participants in 15 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on overall survival was 24 fewer deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 60 fewer to 9 more per 1000 patients.Colorectal cancer-specific survival: we found intensive follow-up probably made little or no difference (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07: I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 925 colorectal cancer deaths among 11,771 participants enrolled in 11 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on colorectal cancer-specific survival was 15 fewer colorectal cancer-specific survival deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 47 fewer to 12 more per 1000 patients.Relapse-free survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.21; I² = 41%; high-quality evidence). There were 2254 relapses among 8047 participants enrolled in 16 studies. The average effect of intensive follow-up on relapse-free survival was 17 more relapses per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 30 fewer and 66 more per 1000 patients.Salvage surgery with curative intent: this was more frequent with intensive follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56; I² = 31%; high-quality evidence). There were 457 episodes of salvage surgery in 5157 participants enrolled in 13 studies. In absolute terms, the effect of intensive follow-up on salvage surgery was 60 more episodes of salvage surgery per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 33 to 96 more episodes per 1000 patients.Interval (symptomatic) recurrences: these were less frequent with intensive follow-up (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; I² = 66%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 376 interval recurrences reported in 3933 participants enrolled in seven studies. Intensive follow-up was associated with fewer interval recurrences (52 fewer per 1000 patients); the true effect is between 18 and 75 fewer per 1000 patients.Intensive follow-up probably makes little or no difference to quality of life, anxiety, or depression (reported in 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.Intensive follow-up may increase the complications (perforation or haemorrhage) from colonoscopies (OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 70.69; 1 study, 326 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported seven colonoscopic complications in 2292 colonoscopies, three perforations and four gastrointestinal haemorrhages requiring transfusion. We could not combine the data, as they were not reported by study arm in one study.The limited data on costs suggests that the cost of more intensive follow-up may be increased in comparison with less intense follow-up (low-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that there is no overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Although more participants were treated with salvage surgery with curative intent in the intensive follow-up groups, this was not associated with improved survival. Harms related to intensive follow-up and salvage therapy were not well reported.

Intensive follow-up strategies after radical surgery for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancers is common in clinical practice, but evidence of a survival benefit is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of follow-up strategies for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases through May 30, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized clinical trials evaluating intensive follow-up versus less follow-up in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

Intensive follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Overall survival.

RESULTS

The analyses included 17 trials with a total of 8039 patients. Compared with less follow-up, intensive follow-up significantly improved overall survival in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer after radical surgery (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, P = 0.01; I2 = 30%; high quality). Subgroup analyses showed that differences between intensive-frequency and intensive-test follow-up (P = 0.04) and between short interval and long interval of follow-up (P = 0.02) in favor of the former one.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical heterogeneity of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer after curative resection, intensive follow-up strategy was associated with an improvement in overall survival compared with less follow-up strategy. Intensive-frequency follow-up strategy was associated with a greater reduction in mortality compared with intensive-test follow-up strategy.

How Do We Follow Up Patients With Endometrial Cancer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we present the existing evidence regarding follow-up care after endometrial cancer, including content of follow-up and type of provider. We furthermore discuss the future perspectives for follow-up care and research in the field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recently published randomized controlled trials show that nurse-led telephone follow-up and patient-initiated follow-up are feasible alternatives to routine hospital-based follow-up. No randomized or prospective study has evaluated the effect of routine follow-up on survival. Hence, current knowledge is derived from retrospective studies with the inherent risk of bias. The most important method for recurrence detection is a review of symptoms. There is no evidence to support a survival benefit from the use of routine physical examinations, additional tests, or imaging. One in three of the women attending hospital-based follow-up experience unmet needs, and alternative models for follow-up focused on survivorship care and empowerment should be tested.

Post-treatment surveillance testing of patients with colorectal cancer and the association with survival: protocol for a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database

INTRODUCTION

Although the colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality rate has significantly improved over the past several decades, many patients will have a recurrence following curative treatment. Despite this high risk of recurrence, adherence to CRC surveillance testing guidelines is poor which increases cancer-related morbidity and potentially, mortality. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with varying surveillance strategies have yielded conflicting evidence regarding the survival benefit associated with surveillance testing. However, due to differences in study protocols and limitations of sample size and length of follow-up, the RCT may not be the best study design to evaluate this relationship. An observational comparative effectiveness research study can overcome the sample size/follow-up limitations of RCT designs while assessing real-world variability in receipt of surveillance testing to provide much needed evidence on this important clinical issue. The gap in knowledge that this study will address concerns whether adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network CRC surveillance guidelines improves survival.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Patients with colon and rectal cancer aged 66-84 years, who have been diagnosed between 2002 and 2008 and have been included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, are eligible for this retrospective cohort study. To minimise bias, patients had to survive at least 12 months following the completion of treatment. Adherence to surveillance testing up to 5 years post-treatment will be assessed in each year of follow-up and overall. Binomial regression will be used to assess the association between patients' characteristics and adherence. Survival analysis will be conducted to assess the association between adherence and 5-year survival.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the National Cancer Institute and the Institutional Review Board of the University of Central Florida. The results of this study will be disseminated by publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, presentation at national/international scientific conferences and posting through social media.

The costs, resource use and cost-effectiveness of Clinical Nurse Specialist-led interventions for patients with palliative care needs: A systematic review of international evidence

BACKGROUND

Patients with palliative care needs do not access specialist palliative care services according to their needs. Clinical Nurse Specialists working across a variety of fields are playing an increasingly important role in the care of such patients, but there is limited knowledge of the extent to which their interventions are cost-effective.

OBJECTIVES

To present results from a systematic review of the international evidence on the costs, resource use and cost-effectiveness of Clinical Nurse Specialist-led interventions for patients with palliative care needs, defined as seriously ill patients and those with advanced disease or frailty who are unlikely to be cured, recover or stabilize.

DESIGN

Systematic review following PRISMA methodology.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library up to 2015. Studies focusing on the outcomes of Clinical Nurse Specialist interventions for patients with palliative care needs, and including at least one economic outcome, were considered. The quality of studies was assessed using tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute.

RESULTS

A total of 79 papers were included: 37 randomized controlled trials, 22 quasi-experimental studies, 7 service evaluations and other studies, and 13 economic analyses. The studies included a wide variety of interventions including clinical, support and education, as well as care coordination activities. The quality of the studies varied greatly.

CONCLUSION

Clinical Nurse Specialist interventions may be effective in reducing specific resource use such as hospitalizations/re-hospitalizations/admissions, length of stay and health care costs. There is mixed evidence regarding their cost-effectiveness. Future studies should ensure that Clinical Nurse Specialists' roles and activities are clearly described and evaluated.

A systematic review of patient perspectives on surveillance after colorectal cancer treatment

PURPOSE

Surveillance after colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment is routine, but intensive follow-up may offer little-to-no overall survival benefit. Given the growing population of CRC survivors, we aimed to systematically evaluate the literature for the patient perspective on two questions: (1) How do CRC patients perceive routine surveillance following curative treatment and what do they expect to gain from their surveillance testing or visits? (2) Which providers (specialists, nursing, primary care) are preferred by CRC survivors to guide post-treatment surveillance?

METHODS

Systematic searches of PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were conducted. Studies were screened for inclusion by two reviewers, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted and evaluated utilizing validated reporting tools (CONSORT, STROBE, CASP) appropriate to study design.

RESULTS

Citations (3691) were screened, 91 full-text articles reviewed, and 23 studies included in the final review: 15 quantitative and 8 qualitative. Overall, 12 studies indicated CRC patients perceive routine surveillance positively, expecting to gain reassurance of continued disease suppression. Negative perceptions described in six studies included anxiety and dissatisfaction related to quality of life or psychosocial issues during follow-up. Although 5 studies supported specialist-led care, 9 studies indicated patient willingness to have follow-up with non-specialist providers (primary care or nursing).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' perceptions of follow-up after CRC are predominantly positive, although unmet needs included psychosocial support and quality of life.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Survivors perceived follow-up as reassuring, however, surveillance care should be more informative and focused on survivor-specific needs.

Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for several years following their curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. Despite this widespread practice, there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed, and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and first updated in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intensive follow-up for patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to May 20th, 2016), Embase (1974 to May 20th, 2016), CINAHL (1981 to May 20th, 2016), and Science Citation Index (1900 to May 20th, 2016). We also searched reference lists of articles, and handsearched the Proceedings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (2011 to 2014). In addition, we searched the following trials registries (May 20th, 2016): ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We further contacted study authors. No language or publication restrictions were applied to the search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for participants with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently determined trial eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We studied 5403 participants enrolled in 15 studies. (We included two new studies in this second update.) Although the studies varied in setting (general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, or surgeon-led) and "intensity" of follow-up, there was very little inconsistency in the results.Overall survival: we found no evidence of a statistical effect with intensive follow-up (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.02; I² = 4%; P = 0.41; high-quality evidence). There were 1098 deaths among 4786 participants enrolled in 12 studies.Colorectal cancer-specific survival: this did not differ with intensive follow-up (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; I² = 0%; P = 0.45; moderate-quality evidence). There were 432 colorectal cancer deaths among 3769 participants enrolled in seven studies.Relapse-free survival: we found no statistical evidence of effect with intensive follow-up (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; I² = 5%; P = 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). There were 1416 relapses among 5253 participants enrolled in 14 studies.Salvage surgery with curative intent: this was more frequent with intensive follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56; I² = 31%; P = 0.14; high-quality evidence). There were 457 episodes of salvage surgery in 5157 participants enrolled in 13 studies.Interval (symptomatic) recurrences: these were less frequent with intensive follow-up (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; I² = 66%; P = 0.007; moderate-quality evidence). Three hundred and seventy-six interval recurrences were reported in 3933 participants enrolled in seven studies.Intensive follow-up did not appear to affect quality of life, anxiety, nor depression (reported in three studies).Harms from colonoscopies did not differ with intensive follow-up (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.11 to 40.17; moderate-quality evidence). In two studies, there were seven colonoscopic complications in 2112 colonoscopies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that there is no overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Although more participants were treated with salvage surgery with curative intent in the intensive follow-up group, this was not associated with improved survival. Harms related to intensive follow-up and salvage therapy were not well reported.

Economic evaluations of follow-up strategies for cancer survivors: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the literature

The aim of this study was to review and critically assess the health economics literature on post-treatment follow-up for adult cancer survivors. A systematic search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist was adopted to assess the quality of the included studies. Thirty-nine articles met the eligibility criteria. Around two thirds of the studies addressed the most common cancers (i.e., breast, colorectal, cervical and lung); 21 were based on a single clinical study, while the rest were modeling papers. All types of economic evaluations were represented other than cost-benefit analysis. The overall quality was generally high with an average proportion of 74% of checklist criteria fulfilled. The cost-effectiveness results supported the current trend towards less intensive, primary care-based and risk-adapted follow-up schemes.

Nurse-led clinics can manage faecal incontinence effectively: results from a tertiary referral centre

AIM

In May 2010, a specialist nurse-initiated assessment and treatment algorithm for faecal incontinence (FI) was introduced at the department of Anal Physiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of and patient satisfaction with the program.

METHOD

A medical file audit was preformed on patients evaluated and treated for FI and discharged after September 2010. Patients were invited to participate in a structured telephone interview. This study aimed to enrol 100 patients. Patients were asked if they were satisfied with their current level of continence status (yes/no), and a numerical satisfaction score and Wexner score were recorded. These results were compared to baseline and at time of discharge.

RESULTS

One-hundred patients completed the telephone interview; 73 of these patients were satisfied after a median of 420 (range: 114-586) days following discharge from the program. A median of one outpatient consultation followed by one telephone follow-up was required before the patients were discharged. The Wexner score was significantly reduced by 3.9 (±4.4) (P < 0.001) points among the satisfied and non-significantly reduced by 0.52 (± 3.3) (P = 0.42) points among the dissatisfied patients at follow-up compared to baseline. The satisfied and dissatisfied patients at follow-up did not differ in baseline characteristics including Wexner score.

CONCLUSIONS

FI can successively be evaluated and conservatively managed by specialist nurses, and these nurses achived high satisfaction rates among their patients. The concept of specialist nurse-led clinics will reduce waiting lists, and descrease the number of patients needing to be evaluated by a surgeon.

Trained clinical nurse specialists proficiently obtain bone marrow aspirates and trephine biopsies in a nearly painless procedure--a prospective evaluation study

Patients often experience bone marrow examinations (BMEs) as frightening and painful. Varying operators and uncertainty about who will perform the BME worsen their anxiety. In our study, clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) were trained to perform BMEs to ensure continuity and to test the feasibility, patient satisfaction, and biopsy quality. This exploratory evaluation assessed 574 BMEs at our tertiary center between January 2012 and February 2013, 398 BMEs performed by CNS and 176 by physicians. Our aims were to determine whether BMEs by CNS yield results similar to those of physicians, analyzing (1) patient satisfaction with the BME (a) consent and (b) performance, (2) induced pain, and (3) quality of aspirates and length of trephine biopsies. When performed by CNS, 100 % of the patients were satisfied with the consent procedure and 99 % with the BME performance (physicians 99 and 91 %, respectively). The median pain score was low when both CNS and physicians performed the BME, with no or only mild pain in 92 and 76 % of patients, respectively. Bone marrow (BM) aspirates by CNS and physicians were assessed as technically evaluable in ~70 %; moreover, the median length of trephine biopsies was similar when performed by CNS or physicians with 12 and 13 mm, respectively. In conclusion, BMEs conducted by motivated CNS and within a structured training program are feasible and yield equal outcomes compared to physicians. The use of adequate pain management during BMEs by trained and experienced operators results in an extremely rare use of sedatives, low pain scores, and high patient satisfaction.

Costs and effects of new professional roles: Evidence from a literature review

One way in which governments are seeking to improve the efficiency of the health care sector is by redesigning health services to contain labour costs. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of new professional roles on a wide range of health service outcomes and costs. A systematic literature review was performed by searching in different databases for evaluation papers of new professional roles (published 1985-2013). The PRISMA checklist was used to conduct and report the systematic literature review and the EPHPP-Quality Assessment Tool to assess the quality of the studies. Forty-one studies of specialist nurses (SNs) and advanced nurse practitioners (ANPs) were selected for data extraction and analysis. The 25 SN studies evaluated most often quality of life (10 studies), clinical outcomes (8), and costs (8). Significant advantages were seen most frequently regarding health care utilization (in 3 of 3 studies), patient information (5 of 6), and patient satisfaction (4 of 6). The 16 ANP studies evaluated most often patient satisfaction (8), clinical outcomes (5), and costs (5). Significant advantages were seen most frequently regarding clinical outcomes (5 of 5), patient information (3 of 4), and patient satisfaction (5 of 8). Promoting new professional roles may help improve health care delivery and possibly contain costs. Exploring the optimal skill-mix deserves further attention from health care professionals, researchers and policy makers.

Clinical follow-up does not improve survival after resection of stage I-III colorectal cancer: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of clinical follow-up alongside CT & CEA in detecting recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC) remains unclear. Despite this, clinical review remains part of most surveillance protocols. This study assessed the efficacy of clinical follow-up in addition to CT/CEA in detecting disease recurrence.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery for CRC at a single centre between 2009 and 2011 were identified. Follow-up included clinical review, CT and CEA for 5 years. The primary endpoint of the study was method of detection of recurrence. Secondary endpoints included detection of surgically treatable recurrence, compliance with follow-up, disease free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

118 patients with stage I-III CRC were included. Only 68.9% of scheduled follow-up events were performed (76.6% clinical reviews, 76.2% CT scans and 60.4% CEA tests). At median follow-up of 36 months, 26 patients had developed recurrence (median DFS 45.8 months). 17 patients (14.7%) had died (median OS 49.3 months). Sensitivity and specificity of follow up modality in detecting recurrence were; CT (92.3%, 100%), CEA (57.7%, 100%), clinical review (23.0%, 27.2%). Addition of clinical review did not identify any disease recurrence that was not detected by scheduled CT. Eight patients (30.7%) had surgically treatable recurrence - all were identified by scheduled CT.

CONCLUSION

The addition of CEA testing and clinical review to scheduled CT scanning offered no benefit in the detection of recurrent disease. Clinical review could be removed from follow-up protocols without any reduction in the detection of recurrent cancer.

Colorectal cancer surveillance: what's new and what's next

The accumulated evidence from two decades of randomized controlled trials has not yet resolved the question of how best to monitor colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors for early detection of recurrent and metachronous disease or even whether doing so has its intended effect. A new wave of trial data in the coming years and an evolving knowledge of relevant biomarkers may bring us closer to understanding what surveillance strategies are most effective for a given subset of patients. To best apply these insights, a number of important research questions need to be addressed, and new decision making tools must be developed. In this review, we summarize available randomized controlled trial evidence comparing alternative surveillance testing strategies, describe ongoing trials in the area, and compare professional society recommendations for surveillance. In addition, we discuss innovations relevant to CRC surveillance and outline a research agenda which will inform a more risk-stratified and personalized approach to follow-up.

Enhanced recovery and nurse-led telephone follow-up post surgery

AIM

Nurse-led telephone follow-up was undertaken for patients after major colorectal surgery on the enhanced recovery programme following their discharge, with the aim of ensuring they were provided with adequate advice and information to enable their recovery at home.

METHODOLOGY

A total of 200 patients were prospectively called within 4 weeks of discharge home from hospital by the enhanced recovery nurse.

RESULTS

Diet was generally tolerated and mobility was continued at home. Many of the patients had seen a health professional since their discharge home for issues such as wound care or stoma review. Readmission rates were low and most concerns that patients reported were addressed during the telephone call.

DISCUSSION

It is reassuring that the majority of patients were coping well and many of the concerns reported were simply addressed over the telephone with advice. After the first 100 patients were telephoned, improvements were made to the discharge advice provided to the second 100 patients. The responses suggest that there were less community nurse visits in the second half of the patient cohort and this may be associated with changes made to discharge advice.

CONCLUSION

Patients continue to recover well once discharged home following colorectal surgery on the enhanced recovery pathway. Nurse-led telephone follow-up may be a suitable method for short-term follow-up and, potentially, it is also suitable for long-term follow-up of select groups of cancer patients.

An exploratory randomized controlled trial comparing telephone and hospital follow-up after treatment for colorectal cancer

AIM

Following treatment for colorectal cancer it is common practice for patients to attend hospital clinics at regular intervals for routine monitoring, although debate persists on the benefits of this approach. Nurse-led telephone follow-up is effective in meeting information and psycho-social needs in other patient groups. We explored the potential benefits of nurse-led telephone follow-up for colorectal cancer patients.

METHOD

Sixty-five patients were randomized to either telephone or hospital follow-up in an exploratory randomized trial.

RESULTS

The telephone intervention was deliverable in clinical practice and acceptable to patients and health professionals. Seventy-five per cent of eligible patients agreed to randomization. High levels of satisfaction were evident in both study groups. Appointments in the hospital group were shorter (median 14.0 min, range 2.3-58.0) than appointments in the telephone group (median 28.9 min, range 6.1-48.3). Patients in the telephone arm were more likely to raise concerns during consultations.

CONCLUSION

Historical approaches to follow-up unsupported by evidence of effectiveness and efficiency are not sustainable. Telephone follow-up by specialist nurses may be a feasible option. A main trial comparing hospital and telephone follow-up is justified, although consideration needs to be given to trial design and practical issues related to the availability of specialist nurses at study locations.

Adherence to national guidelines for surveillance after curative resection of nonmetastatic colon and rectum cancer: a survey among Norwegian gastrointestinal surgeons

AIM

National guidelines recommend enrollment of patients in surveillance programmes following curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) in order to detect recurrence or distant metastasis at an asymptomatic/early stage when secondary curative treatment can be offered. Little is known about surgeons' adherence to such guidelines. In this national survey we analyse adherence and attitudes to postoperative follow up among Norwegian gastrointestinal surgeons involved in the care of patients with CRC.

METHOD

We performed a nationwide survey of all hospitals performing surgery for colon and/or rectum cancer. The presence of a surveillance programme, the type of programme, adherence to national guidelines or report on any deviation thereof, location of follow up at the hospital or with a general practitioner (GPs) and the estimated annual volume of surgery were queried through mail and telephone.

RESULTS

All hospitals (n=41) performing colorectal surgery responded, of which 25 (61%) conducted postoperative follow up by surgeons in the hospital outpatient clinics, four (10%) carried out follow up with a combination of hospital outpatient visits and visits to GPs, and 12 (29%) referred surveillance to the GP alone. For total reported patient numbers, almost two-thirds (60%) received surveillance according to national recommendations through outpatient visits with the surgeon or GP, while one-third (37%) were subject to other alternative routines. A small number (2%) received informal 'ad hoc' surveillance only. More liberal use of imaging outside guideline recommendations was reported for rectal cancer patients, while colon cancer patients treated in larger hospitals were more likely to be referred for GP surveillance.

CONCLUSION

All hospitals reported having a strategy for surveillance after surgery for colon and rectal cancer, but there was considerable variance in strategy. A scientific audit of the true level of compliance, effectiveness and cost-benefit is warranted at a national level.