Pernille Tine Jensen

The future for follow-up of gynaecological cancer in Europe. Summary of available data and overview of ongoing trials

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisReviewForskningpeer review

  • S C Leeson, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2PW UK. Electronic address: simon.leeson@wales.nhs.uk.
  • ,
  • K Beaver, School of Health Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Brook Building, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
  • ,
  • N P M Ezendam, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Department of Research and Tilburg University, Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, PO Box 231, 5600 AE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
  • ,
  • R Mačuks, Latvian Oncology Center, Department of Gynecology, Riga Eastern Clinical University Hospital,Hippocrate Street 2, Riga, LV1038, Latvia.
  • ,
  • P L Martin-Hirsch, Director of Research & Innovation, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Preston, Lancashire PR2 9HT, UK.
  • ,
  • T Miles, Royal United Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Coombe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK.
  • ,
  • M M Jeppesen, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Kloevervaenget 10, 10th floor, 5000, Odense C, Denmark. Mette.M.Jeppesen@dadlnet.dk.
  • ,
  • P T Jensen
  • P Zola, Department Surgical Sciences, University of Turin Italy, Via Ventimiglia 3, 10126 Turin, Italy.

After completing treatment, most patients follow a pre-determined schedule of regular hospital outpatient appointments, which includes clinical examinations, consultations and routine tests. After several years of surveillance, patients are transferred back to primary care. However, there is limited evidence to support the effectiveness and efficiency of this approach. This paper examines the current rationale and evidence base for hospital-based follow-up after treatment for gynaecological cancer. We investigate what alternative models of care have been formally evaluated and what research is currently in progress in Europe, in order to make tentative recommendations for a model of follow-up. The evidence base for traditional hospital based follow-up is limited. Alternative models have been reported for other cancer types but there are few evaluations of alternative approaches for gynaecological cancers. We identified five ongoing European studies; four were focused on endometrial cancer patients and one feasibility study included all gynaecological cancers. Only one study had reached the reporting stage. Alternative models included nurse-led telephone follow-up and comparisons of more intensive versus less intensive regimes. Outcomes included survival, quality of life, psychological morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness of service. More work is needed on alternative strategies for all gynaecological cancer types. New models will be likely to include risk stratification with early discharge from secondary care for early stage disease with fast track access to specialist services for suspected cancer recurrence or other problems.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Vol/bind210
Sider (fra-til)376-380
Antal sider5
ISSN0301-2115
DOI
StatusUdgivet - mar. 2017
Eksternt udgivetJa

Se relationer på Aarhus Universitet Citationsformater

ID: 168644929