Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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
    • University of Southampton
    • University of Surrey
    • Health Psychology Consultancy Ltd.
    • University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
    • University of Nottingham

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    146 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

    UN SDGs

    This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

    1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
      SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

    Keywords

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

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: Longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this