Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surveillance after Primary Therapy

  • Chapter
Cancer Survivorship

Abstract

Primary treatment for cancer is often a very regimented experience, with schedules and protocols. These provide comfort to patients because of their certainty. Constant contact with the medical staff helps patients feel that everything must be under control for now, and that if anything develops, someone will notice it. Yet as the end of treatment approaches, it is not uncommon for anxiety levels of patients to rise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Johnson FE. Overview. In: Johnson FE, Virgo KS, eds. Cancer Patient Follow-Up. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997:4.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Virgo KS, Johnson FE. Costs of surveillance after potentially curative treatment for cancer. In: Johnson FE, Virgo KS, eds. Cancer Patient Follow-Up. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997:44.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pfister DG, Benson AB, Somerfield MR. Clinical practice. Surveillance strategies after curative treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2375–2382.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gulliford T, Opomu M, Wilson E, et al. Popularity of less frequent follow up for breast cancer in randomised study: initial findings from the hotline study. BMJ. 1997;314:174–177.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Grunfeld E, Mant D, Yudkin P, et al. Routine follow-up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ. 1996;313:665–669.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Loprinzi CL, Hayes D, Smith T. Doc, shouldn’t we be getting some tests? J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2345–2348.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Walsh GL, O’Connor M, Willis KM, et al. Is follow-up of lung cancer patients after resection medically indicated and costeffective? Ann Thorac Surg 1995;60:1563–1570.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Briele HA, Beattie CW, Ronan SG, et al. Late recurrence of cutaneous melanoma. Arch Surg 1983;118:800–803.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruinvels DJ, Stiggelbout AM, Kievit J, et al. Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis. Ann Surg 1994;219:174–182.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bast RCJ, Ravdin P, Hayes DF, et al. 2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1865–1878.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, et al. An evaluation of the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test for monitoring patients with resected colon cancer. JAMA 1995;270:943–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Benson AB, Desch CE, Flynn PJ, et al. 2000 update of American Society of Clinical Oncology colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3586–3588.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson JE, Litzow MR, Appelbaum FR, et al. Allogeneic, syngeneic, and autologous marrow transplantation for Hodgkin’s disease: the 21-year Seattle experience. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:2342–2350.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Weeks JC, Yeap BY, Canellos GP, et al. Value of follow-up procedures in patients with large-cell lymphoma who achieve a complete remission. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:1196–1203.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. NIH consensus conference. Ovarian cancer. Screening, treatment, and follow-up. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Ovarian Cancer. JAMA 1995;273:491–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nordic Gastrointestinal Tumor Adjuvant Therapy Group. Expectancy or primary chemotherapy in patients with advanced asymptomatic colorectal cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:904–911.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grunfeld E, Levine M, Julian JA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of routine follow-up for early stage breast cancer: a comparison of primary care versus specialist care. J Clin Oncol, 2004 Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition). 2004;22 (14S) (July 15 Suppl)(Abstract 665).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cocchetto DM, Jones DR. Faster access to drugs for serious or life-threatening illnesses through use of the accelerated approval regulation in the United States. Drug Information Journal 1998;32:27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wynder EL, Mushinski MH, Spivak JC. Tobacco and alcohol consumption in relation to the development of multiple primary cancers. Cancer 1977;40:1872–1878.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Vikram B. Changing patterns of failure in advanced head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol 1984;110:564–565.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Vikram B, Strong EW, Shah JP, et al. Second malignant neoplasms in patients successfully treated with multimodality treatment for advanced head and neck cancer. Head Neck Surg 1984;6:734–737.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Vikram B, Strong EW, Shah JP, et al. Failure at distant sites following multimodality treatment for advanced head and neck cancer. Head Neck Surg 1984;6:730–733.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Barakat RR, Gilewski TA, Almadrones L, et al. Effect of adjuvant tamoxifen on the endometrium in women with breast cancer: a prospective study using office endometrial biopsy. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3459–3463.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gerber B, Krause A, Muller H, et al. Effects of adjuvant tamoxifen on the endometrium in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: a prospective long-term study using transvaginal ultrasound. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3464–3470.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Edge SB, Levine EG, Arredondo MA, Tezcan H. Breast carcinoma. In: Johnson FE, Virgo KS, eds. Cancer Patient Follow-Up. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997:292.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chlebowski RT, Collyar DE, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on breast cancer risk reduction strategies: tamoxifen and raloxifene. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1939–1955.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Fuchs C, Meyerhardt JA, Heseltine DL, et al. Influence of regular aspirin use on survival for patients with stage II colon cancer: findings from Intergroup trial CALGB 89803. J Clin Oncol, 2005 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings. 2005;23 (16S, Part I of II) (June 1 Suppl):3530.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Meyerhardt JA, Heseltine DL, Niedzwiecki D, et al. The impact of physical activity on patients with stage III colon cancer: findings from Intergroup trial CALGB 89803. J Clin Oncol, 2005 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings. 2005;23 (16S, Part I of II) (June 1 Suppl):3534.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Earle CC, Neville BA. Underuse of necessary care among elderly colorectal cancer survivors. Cancer 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Earle CC, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. Quality of non-breast cancer health maintenance among elderly breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1447–1451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Status of the medical oncology workforce. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:2612–2621.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stiggelbout AM, de Haes JC, Vree R, et al. Follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: quality of life and attitudes towards follow-up. Br J Cancer 1997;75:914–920.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wolff SN, Nichols C, Ulman D, et al. Survivorship: An unmet need of the patient with cancer-implications of a survey of the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF). J Clin Oncol, 2005 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings. 2005;23 (16S, Part I of II)(June 1 Suppl):6032.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kjeldsen BJ, Thorsen H, Whalley D, et al. Influence of follow-up on health-related quality of life after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol 1999;34:509–515.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lampic C, Wennberg A, Schill JE, et al. Anxiety and cancerrelated worry of cancer patients at routine follow-up visits. Acta Oncol 1994;33:119–125.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. The GIVIO Investigators. Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1994;271:1587–1592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Muss HB, Tell GS, Case LD, et al. Perceptions of follow-up care in women with breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1991;14:55–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Fong Y, Cohen AM, Fortner JG, et al. Liver resection for colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:938–946.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Secco GB, Fardelli R, Gianquinto D, et al. Efficacy and cost of risk-adapted follow-up in patients after colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial. Eur J Surg Oncol 2002;28:418–423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Stoffel EM, Garber JE, Grover S, et al. Cancer surveillance is often inadequate in people at high risk for colorectal cancer. J Med Genet 2003;40:e54-Stoffel E.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Earle CC, Grunfeld E, Coyle D, et al. Cancer physicians’ attitudes toward colorectal cancer follow-up. Ann Oncol 2003;14:400–405.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Vernava AM, Longo WE, Virgo KS, et al. Current follow-up strategies after resection of colon cancer. Results of a survey of members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:573–583.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Eddy DM. Breast cancer screening in women younger than 50 years of age: what’s next? Ann Intern Med 1997;127:1035–1036.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Eddy DM. Screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:373–384.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:214–226.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O’Brien MJ, et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Eng J Med 1993;328:901–906.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Andre T, Boni C, Mounedji-Boudiaf L, et al. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2343–2351.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Meropol NJ, Smith JL. Gastric carcinoma. In: Johnson FE, Virgo KS, eds. Cancer Patient Follow-Up. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997:94.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Emens LA, Davidson NE. The follow-up of breast cancer. Semin Oncol 2003;30:338–348.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rosen PP, Groshen S, Kinne DW, et al. Contralateral breast carcinoma: an assessment of risk and prognosis in stage I (T1N0M0) and stage II (T1N1M0) patients with 20-year follow-up. Surgery 1989;106:904–910.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. McCredie JA, Inch WR, Alderson M. Consecutive primary carcinomas of the breast. Cancer 1975;35:1472–1477.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Grunfeld E, Noorani H, McGahan L, et al. Surveillance mammography after treatment of primary breast cancer: a systematic review. The Breast 2002;11:228–235.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Fajardo LL, Roberts CC, Hunt KR. Mammographic surveillance of breast cancer patients: should the mastectomy site be imaged? Am J Roentgenol 1993;161:953–955.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Rissanen TJ, Makarainen HP, Mattila SI, et al. Breast cancer recurrence after mastectomy: diagnosis with mammography and US. Radiology 1993;188:463–467.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Smith TJ, Davidson NE, Schapira DV, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 1998 update of recommended breast cancer surveillance guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1080–1082.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Pestalozzi BC, Luporsi-Gely E, Jost LM, et al. ESMO Minimum Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, adjuvant treatment and follow-up of primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2005;16(suppl 1):i7–i9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Web site. Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast cancer. Available at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Grunfeld E, Dhesy-Thind S, Levine M. Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: follow-up after treatment for breast cancer (summary of the 2005 update). CMAJ 2005;172:1319–1320.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Eng J Med 2004;351:427–437.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004;292:1317–1325.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Rosselli DT, Palli D, Cariddi A, et al. Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA 1994;271:1593–1597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rojas MP, Telaro E, Russo A, et al. Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD 001768, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Tomiak E, Piccart M. Routine follow-up of patients after primary therapy for early breast cancer: changing concepts and challenges for the future. Ann Oncol 1993;4:199–204.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Tomiak EM, Piccart MJ. Routine follow-up of patients following primary therapy for early breast cancer: what is useful? Acta Clin Belg 1993;15(suppl):38–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Van Cutsem EJ, Kataja VV. ESMO Minimum Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, adjuvant treatment and follow-up of colon cancer. Ann Oncol 2005;16(suppl 1):i16–i17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Tveit KM, Kataja VV. ESMO Minimum Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of rectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2005;16(suppl 1):i20–i21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Web site. Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Colon cancer. Available at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/colon.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  68. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Web site. Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Rectal cancer. Available at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/rectal.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Edelman MJ, Meyers FJ, Siegel D. The utility of follow-up testing after curative cancer therapy: a critical review and economic analysis. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12:318–331.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Moertel CG, Fleming TR, MacDonald JS, et al. Fluorouracil plus Levamisole as effective adjuvant therapy after resection of stage III colon carcinoma: a final report. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:321–326.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. O’Connell MJ, Laurie JA, Kahn M, et al. Prospectively randomized trial of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:295–300.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Goldberg RM, Fleming TR, Tangen CM, et al. Surgery for recurrent colon cancer: strategies for identifying resectable recurrence and success rates after resection. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, the North Central Cancer Treatment Group, and the Southwest Oncology Group. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:27–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Quentmeier A, Schlag P, Smok M, et al. Re-operation for recurrent colorectal cancer: the importance of early diagnosis for resectability and survival. Eur J Surg Oncol 1990;16:319–325.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Northover JM, Houghton J, Lennon T. CEA to detect recurrences of colon cancer (letter). JAMA 1994;272:31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Ohlsson B, Breland U, Ekberg H, et al. Follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal carcinoma. Randomized comparison with no follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:619–626.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Makela JT, Laitinen SO, Kairaluoma MI. Five-year follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 1995;130:1062–1067.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Kjeldsen BJ, Kronborg O, Fenger C, et al. A prospective randomized study of follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 1997;84:666–669.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Schoemaker D, Black R, Giles L, et al. Yearly colonoscopy, liver CT, and chest radiography do not influence 5-year survival of colorectal cancer patients. Gastroenterology 1998;114:7–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Pietra N, Sarli L, Costi R, et al. Role of follow-up in management of local recurrences of colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized study. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 1998;41:1127–1133.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Rosen M, Chan L, Beart RWJ, et al. Follow-up of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 1998;41:1116–1126.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Renehan AG, Egger M, Saunders MP, et al. Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2002;324:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Jeffrey GM, Hickey BE, Hider P. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, CD 002200. DOI:10. 1002/14651858.CD 002200.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Figueredo A, Rumble RB, Maroun J, et al. Follow-up of patients with “curatively resected” colorectal cancer: A practice guideline. BMC Cancer 2003;3:26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Fletcher RH. Carcinoembryonic antigen. Ann Intern Med 1986;104:66–73.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Goslin R, Steele G, Macintyre J. The use of preoperative plasma CEA levels for the stratification of patients after curative resection of colorectal cancers. Ann Surg 1990;182:747–751.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care. Followup of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer. Available at http://www.cancercare.on.ca/pdf/pebc2-9f.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Kondagunta GV, Sheinfeld J, Motzer RJ. Recommendations of follow-up after treatment of germ cell tumors. Semin Oncol 2003;30:382–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Fossa SD, Horwich A, Russell JM, et al. Optimal planning target volume for stage I testicular seminoma: a Medical Research Council randomized trial. Medical Research Council Testicular Tumor Working Group. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1146.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Raghavan D. Testicular carcinoma. In: Johnson FE, Virgo KS, eds. Cancer Patient Follow-Up. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997:408–1431.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Huddart RA, Kataja VV. ESMO Minimum Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of testicular seminoma. Ann Oncol 2005;16(suppl 1):i40–i42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Huddart RA, Purkalne G. ESMO Minimum Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of mixed or non-seminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT). Ann Oncol 2005;16(suppl 1):i37–i39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Website. Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Testicular cancer. Available at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/testicular.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care. Surveillance programs for early stage non-seminomatous testicular cancer. Available at http://www.cancercare.on.ca/pdf/pebc3-5f.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Williams SD, Stablein DM, Einhorn LH, et al. Immediate adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation with treatment at relapse in pathological stage II testicular cancer. N Engl J Med 1987;317:1433–1438.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Harvey ML, Geldart TR, Duell R, et al. Routine computerised tomographic scans of the thorax in surveillance of stage I testicular non-seminomatous germ-cell cancer—a necessary risk? Ann Oncol 2002;13:237–242.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Sharir S, Jewett MA, Sturgeon JF, et al. Progression detection of stage I nonseminomatous testis cancer on surveillance: implications for the followup protocol. J Urol 1999;161:472–475.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Gietema JA, Meinardi MT, Sleijfer DT, et al. Routine chest Xrays have no additional value in the detection of relapse during routine follow-up of patients treated with chemotherapy for disseminated non-seminomatous testicular cancer. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1616–1620.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. White PM, Adamson DJ, Howard GC, et al. Imaging of the thorax in the management of germ cell testicular tumours. Clin Radiol 1999;54:207–211.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Birch R, Williams S, Cone A, et al. Prognostic factors for favorable outcome in disseminated germ cell tumors. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:400–407.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Grunfeld E, Mant D, Yudkin P, et al. Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ 1996;313:665–669.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Grunfeld E, Yudkin P, Adewuyl-Dalton R, et al. Follow up in breast cancer. Quality of life unaffected by general practice follow up. BMJ 1995;311:54.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Grunfeld E, Mant D, Vessey MP, et al. Evaluating primary care follow-up of breast cancer: methods and preliminary results of three studies. Ann Oncol 1995;6(suppl 2):47–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Grunfeld E, Fitzpatrick R, Mant D, et al. Comparison of breast cancer patient satisfaction with follow-up in primary care versus specialist care: results from a randomized controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 1999;49:705–710.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Grunfeld E, Mant D, Vessey MP, et al. Specialist and general practice views on routine follow-up of breast cancer patients in general practice. Fam Pract 1995;12:60–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Grunfeld E, Gray A, Mant D, et al. Follow-up of breast cancer in primary care vs specialist care: results of an economic evaluation. Br J Cancer 1999;79:1227–1233.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Williams C, Coyle D, Gray A, et al. European School of Oncology advisory report to the Commission of the European Communities for the “Europe Against Cancer Programme” cost-effectiveness in cancer care. Eur J Cancer 1995;31A:1410–1424.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Gudex, C. and Kind, P. The QALY Toolkit. Centre for Health Economics. Discussion Paper 38. 1988. University of York. (GENERIC) Ref. Type: Pamphlet.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Ontario Ministry of Health. Guidelines for preparation of economic analysis in submission to drug programs branch for listing in the Ontario Benefit Formulary/Comparative Drug Index. Toronto: 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Commonwealth of Australia. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Department of Health, Housing and Community Services, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA 1996;276:1339–1341.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Parsonage M, Neuberger H. Discounting and health benefits. Health Econ 1992;1:71–79.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Coyle D, Tolley K. Discounting of health benefits in the pharmacoeconomic analysis of drug therapies: an issue for debate? Pharmacoeconomics 1992;2:153–162.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Cairns J. Discounting and health benefits: another perspective. Health Economics 1992;1:76–79.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Sheldon TA. Discounting in health-care decision-making-time for a change. J Public Health Med 1992;14:250–256.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Virgo KS, Johnson FE. Costs of surveillance after potentially curative treatment for cancer. In: Virgo KS, Johnson FE, eds. Cancer Patient Follow-Up. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997:45.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Johnson FE. Overview. In: Johnson FE, Virgo KS, eds. Cancer Patient Follow-Up. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997:7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Craig C. Earle M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P.C. (Associate Professor of Medicine)

Authors
  1. Craig C. Earle M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P.C.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA Schools of Public Health and Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-6900, USA

    Patricia A. Ganz M.D. (American Cancer Society Research Professor) (American Cancer Society Research Professor)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Earle, C.C. (2007). Surveillance after Primary Therapy. In: Ganz, P.A. (eds) Cancer Survivorship. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68265-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68265-5_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-34349-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-68265-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation