Cargando…

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months

PURPOSE: To compare patient-triggered follow-up (PTFU) for curatively treated colorectal cancer against traditional outpatient follow-up (OPFU). METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed at four time points over one-year post-treatment to two prospectively-recruited cohorts: A, patients entering follow-up...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Batehup, L., Porter, K., Gage, H., Williams, P., Simmonds, P., Lowson, E., Dodson, L., Davies, N. J., Wagland, R., Winter, J. D., Richardson, A., Turner, A., Corner, J. L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5445145/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28197848
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3595-x
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To compare patient-triggered follow-up (PTFU) for curatively treated colorectal cancer against traditional outpatient follow-up (OPFU). METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed at four time points over one-year post-treatment to two prospectively-recruited cohorts: A, patients entering follow-up and receiving OPFU pre-implementation of PTFU; B, patients entering follow-up (FU) and receiving either OPFU (B1) or PTFU (B2) post-implementation of PTFU. Bi-variate tests were used to compare patient characteristics and outcomes eight months after entering follow-up (generic and cancer-specific quality of life (QoL), satisfaction). Regression analysis explored associations between follow-up model and outcomes. Resource implications and costs of models were compared. RESULTS: Patients in Cohort B1 were significantly more likely to have received chemotherapy (p < 0.001), radiotherapy (p < 0.05), and reported poorer QoL (p = 0.001). Having a longstanding co-morbid condition was the most important determinant of QoL (p < 0.001); model of care was not significant. Patients were satisfied with their follow-up care regardless of model. Health service costs were higher in PTFU over the first year CONCLUSIONS: PTFU is acceptable to patients with colorectal cancer and can be considered to be a realistic alternative to OPFU for clinically suitable patients. The initial costs are higher due to provision of a self-management (SM) programme and remote surveillance. Further research is needed to establish long-term outcomes and costs. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-017-3595-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.