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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dretzke, Janine, Chaudri, Talhah, Balaji, Rishab, Mehanna, Hisham, Nankivell, Paul, Moore, David J.
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