RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The Danish follow-up program for breast cancer (BC) patients has recently been changed. Today most patients are offered open access to an outpatient clinic, whereas the scheduled visits are phased out. This strategy has been studied in regards to psychological and health-related quality of life outcomes, but not in regards to detection of recurrence and survival. The aim of this study was to quantify the recurrences detected at scheduled outpatient visits in Denmark before the implementation of revised follow-up guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 310 patients with recurrent BC. Information was retrieved on tumor characteristics, type of visit when recurrence was detected, recurrence localization, symptoms reported, and duration of symptoms from the Danish Breast Cancer Group database and medical records. RESULTS: The recurrences were locoregional (26%), locoregional and distant (15%), or distant (59%). Among patients still in outpatient follow-up (n = 199), recurrence was detected at a patient-requested extra outpatient visit (15%), by the general practitioner or other specialist (47%), at a scheduled outpatient visit (21%), or on a scheduled mammogram (11%). Among patients with recurrences detected at scheduled outpatient visits, the majority (88%) reported symptoms related to the recurrence. Most frequent symptoms were pain (37%), dyspnoea (15%), and fatigue (12%). CONCLUSIONS: One-fifth of BC recurrences among patients attending outpatient follow-up were detected at scheduled outpatient visits. Very few of these were asymptomatic. Whether there will be a delay in detection of the symptomatic recurrences when the number of visits is reduced is unknown.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Mama/epidemiología , Neoplasias de la Mama/terapia , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/epidemiología , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality. MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.
Asunto(s)
Supervivientes de Cáncer , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/diagnóstico , Satisfacción del Paciente , Ansiedad/rehabilitación , Supervivientes de Cáncer/psicología , Continuidad de la Atención al Paciente , Depresión/rehabilitación , Fatiga/rehabilitación , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Calidad de Vida , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about long-term risk of depression in women treated for gynecological cancers. We aim to investigate risk for depression among these women compared to women without a history of cancer. METHODS: We followed 16,833 women diagnosed with gynecological cancers between 1998 and 2013 and 138,888 reference women in nationwide registers for up to 19â¯years. Women with a history of severe psychiatric disorders, and those who had redeemed a prescription for antidepressants three years before study entry were excluded from analyses. Regression analyses were applied to compare the risk for antidepressant use among patients compared to reference women, and to investigate associations between socio-demographic as well as clinical risk factors and use of antidepressants. RESULTS: We found an increased risk for antidepressant use among women treated for ovarian (HR 4.14, 95% CI 3.74-4.59), endometrial (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.97-2.45), and cervical cancer (HR 3.14, 95% CI 2.74-3.61) one year after diagnosis. This increased risk persisted years after diagnosis in all three groups, with the longest (up to eight years) found for ovarian cancer. Advanced disease was strongly associated with antidepressant use followed by short education, and comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Women diagnosed with gynecological cancer have an increased risk for depression compared to reference women. The risk remains increased for years after diagnosis throughout and beyond standard oncological follow-up care. Advanced disease, short education, and comorbidity are factors associated with antidepressant use in this patient group.
Asunto(s)
Antidepresivos/uso terapéutico , Depresión/epidemiología , Neoplasias Endometriales/psicología , Neoplasias Ováricas/psicología , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/psicología , Adulto , Anciano , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Comorbilidad , Dinamarca/epidemiología , Depresión/tratamiento farmacológico , Escolaridad , Neoplasias Endometriales/terapia , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neoplasias Ováricas/terapia , Sistema de Registros , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/terapiaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to determine the proportion of return to work (RTW) among sick-listed patients diagnosed with one of eight subtypes of hematological malignancies; to evaluate the influence of type of hematological malignancy, comorbidity, use of anxiolytics and antidepressants, socioeconomic and demographic factors on RTW; and to investigate if these associations differ between genders. METHODS: We combined data from national registers on all Danish patients diagnosed with hematological malignancies between 2000 and 2007. A total of 1,741 patients on long-term sick leave were followed until RTW, emigration, permanent withdrawal from the labor market, death, or February 2012, whichever came first. RESULTS: A total of 1,140 (65 %) patients returned to work. A strong association was found between type of diagnosis and RTW (p < 0.001), and the proportion of RTW was lowest for patients with multiple myeloma or acute leukemia compared to patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, chronic myeloid leukemia, and chronic lymphoid leukemia. Use of antidepressants or anxiolytics after diagnosis, gender, age, and educational level were also associated with RTW. Surprisingly, comorbidity was not associated with RTW (p = 0.94); gender only modified the association between age and RTW. CONCLUSION: Two thirds of patients with hematological malignancies on sick leave RTW. A number of factors seem to lead to a poor prognosis, the hematological diagnosis being the most important, and these should be taken into account when performing studies on work outcome for patients with hematological malignancies. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Knowledge in this area should assist in identification of hematological cancer patients at risk of not returning to work so that early targeted rehabilitation interventions can be initiated.