Follow-up strategies in gynecological oncology: Searching appropriateness

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1186-1193

  Zola, P ^a,b   Fuso, L ^a,b,g   Mazzola, S ^a,b   Gadducci, A ^c   Landoni, F ^d   Maggino, T ^e   Sartori, E ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^b CANDIOLO CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PISA   (Italy)

^d EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^f UNIVERSITY OF BRESCIA   (Italy)

^g MAURIZIANO HOSPITAL   (Italy)

Author keywords

Appropriateness; Follow up; Gynecological malignancies

Indexed keywords

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; FOLLOW UP; GYNECOLOGIC CANCER; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; OVARY TUMOR; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; VAGINA CYTOLOGY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; PATIENT CARE;

EID: 35948970546     PISSN: 1048891X     EISSN: 15251438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00943.x     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Muir JA, Gray J. Evidence-based health care: how to make health policy and management decisions. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1999.
2. First annual Nordic Workshop on how to critically appraise and use evidence in decisions about healthcare, National Institute of Public Health, Oslo (Norway), 1996.
3. Walley T, Rawlins M, Stein K. NHS Executive Report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1996. London: NHS Executive, 1997.
4. Garattini S, Bertele V. Efficacy, safety, and cost of new anticancer drugs. BMJ 2002 325: 269 71.
5. Wynder EL, Higgins IT, Harris RE. The wish bias. J Clin Epidemiol 1990 43: 619 21.
6. Fossati R, Confalonieri C, Apolone G, Cavuto S, Garattini S. Does a drug do better when it is new?. Ann Oncol 2002 13: 470 73.
7. Brown ML, Fireman B. Evaluation of direct medical cost related to cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995 87: 399 400.
8. Brown ML, Riley GF, Schussler N, Etzioni R. Estimating health care costs related to cancer treatment from SEER-Medicare data. Med Care 2002 40 (Suppl. 8 IV 104 17.
9. Grogan M, Rangan A, Gebski V, Boyages J. The value of follow-up of patients with early breast cancer treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Breast 2002 11: 163 9.
10. Morice P, Deyrolle C, Rey A et al. Value of routine follow-up procedures for patients with stage I/II cervical cancer treated with combined surgery-radiation therapy. Ann Oncol 2004 15: 218 23.
11. Bodurka-Bevers D, Morris M, Eifel PJ et al. Posttherapy surveillance of women with cervical cancer: an outcomes analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2000 78: 187 93.
12. Agboola OO, Grunfeld E, Coyle D, Perry GA. Costs and benefits of routine follow-up after curative treatment for endometrial cancer. CMAJ 1997 157: 879 86.
13. Morice P, Levy-Piedbois C, Ajaj S et al. Value of cost evaluation of routine follow-up for patients with clinical stage I/II endometrial cancer. Eur J Cancer 2001 37: 985 90.
14. Tjalma WA, van Dam PA, Makar AP, Cruickshank DJ. The clinical value and the cost-effectiveness of follow-up in endometrial cancer patients [review]. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2004 14: 931 7.
15. Bristow RE, Purinton SC, Santillan A, Diaz-Montes TP, Gardner GJ, Giuntoli RL 2nd. Cost-effectiveness of routine vaginal cytology for endometrial cancer surveillance. Gynecol Oncol 2006 103: 709 13.
16. Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, Sullivan SD. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 2004 329: 972 5.
17. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB, for the Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996 276: 1253 8.
18. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA 1996 276: 1339 41.
19. Liberati A, Torri V, Apolone G. Assessing the effectiveness of follow-up care for colorectal cancer: a great conceptual and methodological challenge for clinical oncology. Ann Oncol 1997 8: 1059 62.
20. Grunfeld E, Mant D, Vessey MP, Yudkin P. Evaluating primary care follow-up of breast cancer: methods and preliminary results of three studies [review]. Ann Oncol 1995 6 (Suppl. 2 47 52.
21. Richert-Boe KE. Heterogeneity of cancer surveillance practices among medical oncologists in Washington and Oregon. Cancer 1995 75: 2605 12.
22. Loomer L, Brockschmidt JK, Muss HB, Saylor G. Postoperative follow-up of patients with early breast cancer. Patterns of care among clinical oncologists and a review of the literature [review]. Cancer 1991 67: 55 60.
23. Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. The GIVIO Investigators. JAMA 1994 271: 1587 92.
24. Vernava A, Longo W, Virgo K, Coplin MA, Wade TP, Johnson FE. Current follow up strategies after resection of colon cancer. Results of a surgery of members of the American society of colon and rectal surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum 1994 37: 573 82.
25. Foster MF, Hill J, Leaper DJ. Follow up after colorectal cancer: recurrent practice in Wales and southwest England. Int J Colorectal Dis 1987 2: 118 9.
26. Luetz PG, Meltzer CC, Villemagne VL et al. Combined FDG-PET/CT imaging in oncology. Impact on patient management. Clin Positron Imaging 2000 3: 223 30.
27. Jerusalem G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y, Fillet G. PET scan imaging in oncology [review]. Eur J Cancer 2003 39: 1525 34.
28. Sackett D. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996 312: 71 2.
29. Naunheim KS, Virgo KS, Coplin MA, Johnson FE. Clinical surveillance testing after lung cancer operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1995 60: 1612 6.
30. Lamont EB, Christakis NA. Prognostic disclosure to patients with cancer near the end of life. Ann Intern Med 2001 134: 1096 105.
31. Christakis NA, Lamont EB. Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2000 320: 469 72.
32. Lamont EB, Siegler M. Paradoxes in cancer patients' advance care planning. J Palliat Med 2000 3: 27 35.
33. The AM, Hak T, Koeter G, van Der Wal G. Collusion in doctor-patient communication about imminent death: an ethnographic study. BMJ 2000 321: 1376 81.
34. Adlard JW, Joseph J, Brammer CV, Gerrard GE. Open access follow-up for lung cancer: patient and staff satisfaction. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2001 13: 404 8.
35. Grunfeld E, Levine MN, Julian JA et al. Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus specialist care. J Clin Oncol 2006 24: 848 55 Epub January 17, 2006 AL, Massuger LF, Bulten J, Ligtenberg MJ, Hoogerbrugge N, de Hullu JA. Surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary ovarian cancer is inefficient. Br J Cancer 2006 94: 814 9.
36. Hope T. Evidence-based patient choice. London: The King's Fund, 1997.
37. Coulter A. Paternalism or partnership? Patients have grown up-and there's no going back. BMJ 1999 319: 719 20.
38. Guadagnoli E, Ward P. Patient participation in decision making. Soc Sci Med 1998 47: 329 39.
39. Parker M. The ethics of evidence-based patient choice. Oxford: The Ethox Centre, University of Oxford, 2002.
40. Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt G. Physicians' and patients' choices in evidence based practice [editorials]. Brit Med J 2002 324: 1350.
41. Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell BA, Brundage MD, Mackillop WJ. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Making 2000 20: 228 38.
42. Loprinzi CL, Hayes D, Smith T. Doc, shouldn't we be getting some tests? J Clin Oncol 2003 21 (Suppl. 9 108 11.
43. Frank CD. At the will of the body: reflections on illness. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.
44. Naylor CD. The grey zones of clinical practice. Lancet 1995 345: 840 2.