Cargando…
A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient‐initiated follow‐up after cancer
BACKGROUND: The traditional cancer follow‐up (FU) model for cancer survivors is by scheduled clinic appointments; however, this is not tailored to patient needs and is becoming unsustainable. Patient‐initiated follow‐up (PIFU) may be a more effective and flexible alternative. This systematic review...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10557867/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37602830 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6462 |
_version_ | 1785117165039386624 |
---|---|
author | Dretzke, Janine Chaudri, Talhah Balaji, Rishab Mehanna, Hisham Nankivell, Paul Moore, David J. |
author_facet | Dretzke, Janine Chaudri, Talhah Balaji, Rishab Mehanna, Hisham Nankivell, Paul Moore, David J. |
author_sort | Dretzke, Janine |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The traditional cancer follow‐up (FU) model for cancer survivors is by scheduled clinic appointments; however, this is not tailored to patient needs and is becoming unsustainable. Patient‐initiated follow‐up (PIFU) may be a more effective and flexible alternative. This systematic review aims to analyse all existing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of PIFU compared with other FU models that include routinely scheduled appointments in adults who have been treated with curative intent for any type of cancer. METHODS: Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification, selection and data extraction. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos were searched for systematic reviews to March 2022, and Cochrane CENTRAL was searched for RCTs from 2018 (April 2023). Ongoing trial registers were searched (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, April 2023). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing PIFU with an alternative FU model in adult cancer survivors. Risk of bias assessment was via the Cochrane risk of bias tool‐2. Meta‐analysis was precluded by clinical heterogeneity and results were reported narratively. RESULTS: Ten RCTs were included (six breast, two colorectal, one endometrial cancer and one melanoma, total n = 1754); all studies had risk of bias concerns, particularly relating to how missing data were handled, and populations were unlikely to be representative. Limited findings in breast cancer suggested that type of FU does not affect recurrence detection or patient‐related outcomes, while PIFU may reduce the number of clinic visits. Adding patient‐led surveillance to routine FU may increase melanoma detection. Evidence for other types of cancer is too limited to draw firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: PIFU may be a viable FU model in breast cancer, but further research is needed for other types of cancer and on long‐term outcomes. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181424). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10557867 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105578672023-10-07 A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient‐initiated follow‐up after cancer Dretzke, Janine Chaudri, Talhah Balaji, Rishab Mehanna, Hisham Nankivell, Paul Moore, David J. Cancer Med RESEARCH ARTICLES BACKGROUND: The traditional cancer follow‐up (FU) model for cancer survivors is by scheduled clinic appointments; however, this is not tailored to patient needs and is becoming unsustainable. Patient‐initiated follow‐up (PIFU) may be a more effective and flexible alternative. This systematic review aims to analyse all existing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of PIFU compared with other FU models that include routinely scheduled appointments in adults who have been treated with curative intent for any type of cancer. METHODS: Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification, selection and data extraction. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos were searched for systematic reviews to March 2022, and Cochrane CENTRAL was searched for RCTs from 2018 (April 2023). Ongoing trial registers were searched (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, April 2023). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing PIFU with an alternative FU model in adult cancer survivors. Risk of bias assessment was via the Cochrane risk of bias tool‐2. Meta‐analysis was precluded by clinical heterogeneity and results were reported narratively. RESULTS: Ten RCTs were included (six breast, two colorectal, one endometrial cancer and one melanoma, total n = 1754); all studies had risk of bias concerns, particularly relating to how missing data were handled, and populations were unlikely to be representative. Limited findings in breast cancer suggested that type of FU does not affect recurrence detection or patient‐related outcomes, while PIFU may reduce the number of clinic visits. Adding patient‐led surveillance to routine FU may increase melanoma detection. Evidence for other types of cancer is too limited to draw firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: PIFU may be a viable FU model in breast cancer, but further research is needed for other types of cancer and on long‐term outcomes. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181424). John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10557867/ /pubmed/37602830 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6462 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | RESEARCH ARTICLES Dretzke, Janine Chaudri, Talhah Balaji, Rishab Mehanna, Hisham Nankivell, Paul Moore, David J. A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient‐initiated follow‐up after cancer |
title | A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient‐initiated follow‐up after cancer |
title_full | A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient‐initiated follow‐up after cancer |
title_fullStr | A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient‐initiated follow‐up after cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient‐initiated follow‐up after cancer |
title_short | A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient‐initiated follow‐up after cancer |
title_sort | systematic review of the effectiveness of patient‐initiated follow‐up after cancer |
topic | RESEARCH ARTICLES |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10557867/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37602830 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6462 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dretzkejanine asystematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT chaudritalhah asystematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT balajirishab asystematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT mehannahisham asystematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT nankivellpaul asystematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT mooredavidj asystematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT asystematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT dretzkejanine systematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT chaudritalhah systematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT balajirishab systematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT mehannahisham systematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT nankivellpaul systematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT mooredavidj systematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer AT systematicreviewoftheeffectivenessofpatientinitiatedfollowupaftercancer |