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

L. Batehup, K. Porter, H. Gage, P. Williams, P. Simmonds, E. Lowson, L. Dodson, N. J. Davies, R. Wagland, J. D. Winter, A. Richardson, Andy Turner, J. L. Corner

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    4 Citations (Scopus)
    57 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)(in press)
    Number of pages11
    JournalSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer
    Volume(in press)
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 14 Feb 2017

    Fingerprint

    Colorectal Neoplasms
    Therapeutics
    Outpatients
    Quality of Life
    Costs and Cost Analysis
    Aftercare
    Self Care
    Health Care Costs
    Health Services
    Radiotherapy
    Regression Analysis
    Drug Therapy

    Keywords

    • Colorectal cancer
    • Aftercare
    • Follow-up
    • Patient triggered-follow-up
    • Remote surveillance

    Cite this

    Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer : Longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months. / 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, Andy; Corner, J. L.

    In: Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, Vol. (in press), 14.02.2017, p. (in press).

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    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, Andy ; Corner, J. L. / Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer : Longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months. In: Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2017 ; Vol. (in press). pp. (in press).
    @article{3b646bb5af5d4d92b8cfee049c10fe8e,
    title = "Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: Longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months",
    abstract = "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.",
    keywords = "Colorectal cancer, Aftercare, Follow-up, Patient triggered-follow-up, Remote surveillance",
    author = "L. Batehup and K. Porter and H. Gage and P. Williams and P. Simmonds and E. Lowson and L. Dodson and Davies, {N. J.} and R. Wagland and Winter, {J. D.} and A. Richardson and Andy Turner and Corner, {J. L.}",
    year = "2017",
    month = "2",
    day = "14",
    doi = "10.1007/s00520-017-3595-x",
    language = "English",
    volume = "(in press)",
    pages = "(in press)",
    journal = "Supportive Care in Cancer",
    issn = "0941-4355",
    publisher = "Springer Verlag",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer

    T2 - Longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months

    AU - Batehup, L.

    AU - Porter, K.

    AU - Gage, H.

    AU - Williams, P.

    AU - Simmonds, P.

    AU - Lowson, E.

    AU - Dodson, L.

    AU - Davies, N. J.

    AU - Wagland, R.

    AU - Winter, J. D.

    AU - Richardson, A.

    AU - Turner, Andy

    AU - Corner, J. L.

    PY - 2017/2/14

    Y1 - 2017/2/14

    N2 - 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.

    AB - 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.

    KW - Colorectal cancer

    KW - Aftercare

    KW - Follow-up

    KW - Patient triggered-follow-up

    KW - Remote surveillance

    U2 - 10.1007/s00520-017-3595-x

    DO - 10.1007/s00520-017-3595-x

    M3 - Article

    VL - (in press)

    SP - (in press)

    JO - Supportive Care in Cancer

    JF - Supportive Care in Cancer

    SN - 0941-4355

    ER -