Towards a personalised approach to aftercare: a review of cancer follow-up in the UK
- 770 Downloads
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
KeywordsAftercare Cancer Neoplasm Review Survivors
- 1.Cardy P. Worried Sick: the emotional impact of cancer. 2006, Macmillan Cancer Support.Google Scholar
- 2.Macmillian Cancer Support. Two Million Reasons: The Cancer Survivorship Agenda. 2008.Google Scholar
- 3.Allberry J. Cancer Reform Strategy: Maintaining Momentum, Building for the Future – First Annual Report. Department of Health, December 2008.Google Scholar
- 5.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Evidence to inform the Cancer Reform Strategy: The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of follow-up services after treatment for cancer. 2007, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.Google Scholar
- 7.National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidance on cancer services – improving outcomes in breast cancer. 2002, NICE.Google Scholar
- 10.Jeffery M, Hickey B, Hider PN. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007(1).Google Scholar
- 19.Baildam AD, Keeling F, Thompson L, Bundred N, Hopwood P. Nurse-led surgical follow up clinics for women treated for breast cancer – a randomised controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;88:S136–7.Google Scholar
- 25.Melloni B. Follow-up of patients with curative-intent surgical resection. in press., NSCLC.Google Scholar
- 28.Beaver K. Comparing hospital and telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: randomised equivalence trial. BMJ. 2009;338(7690):337–40.Google Scholar
- 32.Pinto B. (unpublished) Physical activity promotion in cancer follow-up care.Google Scholar
- 34.Maher J, Jackson L. Patient-triggered follow-up for breast cancer survivors. Ongoing study., Hillingdon Breast Unit Mount Vernon Cancer Centre.Google Scholar
- 36.Chatfield C, Simcock R. 2008 Follow-up in breast cancer; SCN Conference presentation, www.sussexcancer.net/.../BreastFollowUp-SCNConference2.pdf
- 37.Primrose J. A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow-up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent - main trial. (ongoing study: NCT00560365, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00560365).
- 39.Wright P. A web-based two-way information platform for use in low risk cancer survivors post-treatment. ongoing study.: Psychosocial Oncology and Clinical Practice Research Group, St James’s Institute of Oncology, ongoing study.Google Scholar
- 40.Richardson A, John J, Kelly J, Armes J, Ream E (2009). Surviving Cancer, Living Life” Support Service: An Evaluation. King’s College London.Google Scholar
- 41.Dunn J, WM, Taggert F, Hulme C, Tritter J, Austoker J, et al.. Involving patients in clinical trial design: the experience of the UK iBreast early breast cancer follow-up trial in Poster presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Clinical Trials. 2009.Google Scholar
- 42.Wille-Jørgensen P, Laurberg S, Påhlman L, Carriquiry L, Lundqvist N, Smedh K, et al. An interim analysis of recruitment to the COLOFOL trial. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(7):756–8.Google Scholar
- 43.Sheppard C, Higgins B, Wise M, Yiangou C, Dubois D, Kilburn S (2009) Breast cancer follow up: a randomised controlled trial comparing point of need access versus routine 6-monthly clinical review. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2009; Feb;13(1):2-8. Epub 2008 Dec 31. Chapman D, C.E., Britton PD, Wishart GC, Patient-led breast cancer follow up. The Breast 2009; 18:100–102.Google Scholar
- 44.Dent J, Allinson A. Self-referral for breast cancer follow-up. ongoing study: Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust Hospital Trust.Google Scholar
- 45.Dunn J, WM, Taggert F, Hulme C, Tritter J, Austoker J, Mossman J, et al. Involving patients in clinical trial design: The experience of the UK iBreast early breast cancer follow-up trial in Poster presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Clinical Trials. 2009.Google Scholar
- 46.Basch E, Iasonos A., Barz A, Culkin A, Kris MG, Artz D, et al. Long-term toxicity monitoring via electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(34):5374–80.Google Scholar
- 47.Pinto BM, Goldstein MG, Papandonatos GD. Promoting physical activity in follow-up care for breast cancer patients. Presented at the Society of Behavioral Medicine Annual Meeting. 2009; Apr 2009.Google Scholar