Should the surgeon or the general practitioner (GP) follow up patients after surgery for colon cancer? A randomized controlled trial protocol focusing on quality of life, cost-effectiveness and serious clinical events

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 8, Issue , 2008, Pages

  Augestad, Knut M ^a,b   Vonen, Barthold ^b,c   Aspevik, Ranveig ^d   Nestvold, Torunn ^e   Ringberg, Unni ^b   Johnsen, Roar ^g   Norum, Jan ^c,f   Lindsetmo, Rolv Ole ^b,c,h  

^a Norwegian Centre for Telemedicine   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH NORWAY   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

^d Helgeland Hospital Trust   (Norway)

^e NORDLAND HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^f NORTHERN NORWAY REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY   (Norway)

^g NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^h UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLON CANCER; COLONOSCOPY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; FOLLOW UP; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURGEON; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; AGED; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COLON TUMOR; COLORECTAL SURGERY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NORWAY; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; COLONIC NEOPLASMS; COLORECTAL SURGERY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FAMILY PRACTICE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; NORWAY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POSTOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 47649100705     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-137     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Cancer in Norway 2006;Cancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population-based Cancer Research. http://www.kreftregisteret.no/ramme.htm?start. htm
2. Trends in colorectal cancer incidence in Norway by gender and anatomic site: an age-period-cohort analysis. E Svensson T Grotmol G Hoff F Langmark J Norstein S Tretli, Eur J Cancer Prev 2002 11 5 489 495 10.1097/00008469- 200210000-00012 12394247
3. Colorectal cancer survival trends in Norway 1958-1997. E Angell-Andersen S Tretli MP Coleman F Langmark T Grotmol, European Journal of Cancer 2004 40 5 734 742 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.09.034 15010075
4. Local recurrence of colorectal cancer: the problem, mechanisms, management and adjuvant therapy. AM Abulafi NS Williams, Br J Surg 1994 81 1 7 19 10.1002/bjs.1800810106 8313126
5. Realism or nihilism in bowel cancer follow-up? J Northover, Lancet 1998 351 9109 1074 1076 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)79375-2 9660572
6. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. M Jeffery BE Hickey PN Hider, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 1 CD002200 17253476
7. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. GM Jeffery BE Hickey P Hider, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002 1 CD002200 11869629
8. Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. AG Renehan M Egger MP Saunders ST O'Dwyer, Bmj 2002 324 7341 813 11934773 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.813
9. Efficacy and cost of risk-adapted follow-up in patients after colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial. GB Secco R Fardelli D Gianquinto P Bonfante E Baldi G Ravera L Derchi R Ferraris, Eur J Surg Oncol 2002 28 4 418 423 10.1053/ejso.2001.1250 12099653
10. Norwegian Gastrointestinal Cancer Group (NGICG). Kontrollopplegg ved kolorektalcancer (Norwegian guidelines) http://www.ngicg.no/gronnbok/gronnbok. htm
11. Disease-free survival versus overall survival as a primary end point for adjuvant colon cancer studies: individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials. DJ Sargent HS Wieand DG Haller R Gray JK Benedetti M Buyse R Labianca JF Seitz CJ O'Callaghan G Francini, J Clin Oncol 2005 23 34 8664 8670 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.6071 16260700
12. Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. CE Desch AB Benson 3rd MR Somerfield PJ Flynn C Krause CL Loprinzi BD Minsky DG Pfister KS Virgo NJ Petrelli, J Clin Oncol 2005 23 33 8512 8519 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.0063 16260687
13. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 1990 16 3 199 208 10.1016/0168-8510(90) 90421-9 10109801
14. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. NK Aaronson S Ahmedzai B Bergman M Bullinger A Cull NJ Duez A Filiberti H Flechtner SB Fleishman JC de Haes, J Natl Cancer Inst 1993 85 5 365 376 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 8433390
15. Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons. MJ Campbell SA Julious DG Altman, Bmj 1995 311 7013 1145 1148 7580713
16. The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30. MT King, Qual Life Res 1996 5 6 555 567 10.1007/BF00439229 8993101
17. Sample size calculations in studies using the EuroQol 5D. M Roset X Badia NE Mayo, Qual Life Res 1999 8 6 539 549 10.1023/A:1008973731515 10548869
18. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. P Fayers N Aaronson K Bjordal M Groenvold D Curran A Bottomley, European Organisiation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brussels 1998
19. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. D Moher KF Schulz DG Altman, Lancet 2001 357 9263 1191 1194 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3 11323066
20. [Psychological stress on patients in tumor after-care after R0 resection of colorectal carcinomas]. F Graupe W Schwenk B Bracht B Kroner-Herwig W Stock, Chirurg 1996 67 6 604 609 discussion 609-610. 8767088
21. Influence of follow-up on health-related quality of life after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. BJ Kjeldsen H Thorsen D Whalley O Kronborg, Scand J Gastroenterol 1999 34 5 509 515 10.1080/003655299750026254 10423068
22. Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer: numbers needed to test and treat. J Kievit, Eur J Cancer 2002 38 7 986 999 10.1016/S0959-8049(02)00061-8 11978524
23. Systematic follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer in Norway: a population-based audit of effectiveness, costs, and compliance. H Korner K Soreide PJ Stokkeland JA Soreide, J Gastrointest Surg 2005 9 3 320 328 10.1016/j.gassur.2004.09.023 15749591
24. Palliative treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. B Glimelius, Scand J Surg 2003 92 1 74 83 12705554
25. Mechanisms of improved survival from intensive followup in colorectal cancer: a hypothesis. AG Renehan M Egger MP Saunders ST O'Dwyer, Br J Cancer 2005 92 3 430 433 15685236
26. Follow-up after colorectal cancer: current practice in The Netherlands. DJ Bruinvels AM Stiggelbout MP Klaassen J Kievit J Dik F Habbema CJ Van de Velde, Eur J Surg 1995 161 11 827 831 8749215
27. Surgeons' follow-up practice after resection of colorectal cancer. J Mella SN Datta A Biffin AG Radcliffe RJ Steele JD Stamatakis, Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1997 79 3 206 209 9196343
28. Surveillance after curative colon cancer resection: practice patterns of surgical subspecialists. KS Virgo TP Wade WE Longo MA Coplin AM Vernava FE Johnson, Ann Surg Oncol 1995 2 6 472 482 10.1007/BF02307079 8591076
29. Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer. AG Renehan ST O'Dwyer DK Whynes, Bmj 2004 328 7431 81 14715603 10.1136/bmj.328.7431.81
30. A cost-effectiveness approach to the Norwegian follow-up programme in colorectal cancer. J Norum JA Olsen, Ann Oncol 1997 8 11 1081 1087 10.1023/A:1008265614183 9426327
31. General practice vs surgical-based follow-up for patients with colon cancer: randomised controlled trial. DA Wattchow DP Weller A Esterman LS Pilotto K McGorm Z Hammett C Platell C Silagy, Br J Cancer 2006 94 8 1116 1121 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603052 16622437
32. Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus specialist care. E Grunfeld MN Levine JA Julian D Coyle B Szechtman D Mirsky S Verma S Dent C Sawka KI Pritchard, J Clin Oncol 2006 24 6 848 855 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.2235 16418496
33. Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus specialist care. JL Khatcheressian TJ Smith, J Clin Oncol 2006 24 6 835 837 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.5153 16418490
34. Do cancer patients benefit from short-term contact with a general practitioner following cancer treatment? A randomised, controlled study. K Holtedahl J Norum T Anvik E Richardsen, Support Care Cancer 2005 13 11 949 956 10.1007/s00520-005-0869-5 16025260
35. The needs of general practitioners in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. S Papagrigoriadis A Koreli, Eur J Surg Oncol 2001 27 6 541 544 10.1053/ejso.2001.1106 11520086
36. "When patients have cancer, they stop seeing me" - the role of the general practitioner in early follow-up of patients with cancer - a qualitative study. T Anvik KA Holtedahl H Mikalsen, BMC Fam Pract 2006 7 19 16549036 10.1186/1471-2296-7-19