Economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after curative treatment for breast cancer: Results of an RCT

European Journal of Cancer

Volumn 47, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1175-1185

  Kimman, M L ^a,b,j   Dirksen, C D ^b   Voogd, A C ^b   Falger, P ^b   Gijsen, B C M ^c   Thuring, M ^d   Lenssen, A ^d   Van Der Ent, F ^d   Verkeyn, J ^e   Haekens, C ^b   Hupperets, P ^b   Nuytinck, J K S ^f   Van Riet, Y ^g   Brenninkmeijer, S J ^h   Scheijmans, L J E E ⁱ   Kessels, A ^b   Lambin, Ph ^a,b   Boersma, L J ^a,b  

^a MAASTRO CLINIC   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c Maastricht UMC+ Comprehensive Cancer Centre   (Netherlands)

^d Sittard Geleen Heerlen   (Netherlands)

^e Weert   (Netherlands)

^f AMPHIA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^g CATHARINA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^h CPRLab   (Netherlands)

ⁱ Institute Verbeeten   (Netherlands)

^j NONE   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

Breast care nurse; Breast neoplasms; Economic evaluation; Follow up; Psychosocial support; Telephone service

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PATIENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EDUCATION PROGRAM; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HOSPITAL FOLLOW UP; HOSPITAL FOLLOW UP PLUS EDUCATIONAL GROUP PROGRAM; HUMAN; NURSE LED TELEPHONE FOLLOW UP; NURSE LED TELEPHONE FOLLOW UP PLUS EDUCATIONAL GROUP PROGRAM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

EID: 79955528416     PISSN: 09598049     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.12.017     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. L.A.L.M. Kiemeney, F.A.M.O. Lemmers, and R.H.A. Verhoeven The risk of cancer in the Netherlands Ned Tijdschr Geneesk 152 41 2008 2233 2241
2. M.L. Kimman, A.C. Voogd, and C.D. Dirksen Follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer: why do we still adhere to frequent outpatient clinic visits? Eur J Cancer 43 4 2007 647 653 (Pubitemid 46502908)
3. D.D.A. Montgomery, K.K. Krupa, and T.T.G. Cooke Follow-up in breast cancer: does routine clinical examination improve outcome? A systematic review of the literature Br J Cancer 97 12 2007 1632 1641
4. N. Meropol, D. Schrag, and T. Smith American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care J Clin Oncol 27 23 2009 3868 3874
5. I.L. Koinberg, B. Fridlund, G.B. Engholm, and L. Holmberg Nurse-led follow-up on demand or by a physician after breast cancer surgery: a randomised study Eur J Oncol Nurs 8 2 2004 109 117 [discussion 118-20] (Pubitemid 38811747)
6. E. Grunfeld, M.N. Levine, and J.A. Julian Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus specialist care J Clin Oncol 24 6 2006 848 855 (Pubitemid 46638835)
7. K. Beaver, D. Tysver-Robinson, and M. Campbell Comparing hospital, telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: randomised equivalence trial BMJ 338 2009 a3147
8. E. Grunfeld Optimizing follow-up after breast cancer treatment Curr Opin Obst Gynecol 21 1 2009 92 96
9. M.L. Kimman, A.C. Voogd, and C.D. Dirksen Improving the quality and efficiency of follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer - rationale and study design of the MaCare trial BMC Cancer 7 1 2007 1
10. M.L. Kimman, C.D. Dirksen, and A.C. Voogd Nurse-led telephone follow-up and an educational group programme after breast cancer treatment: results of a 2 × 2 randomised controlled trial Eur J Cancer 47 7 2011 1027 1036
11. M.L. Kimman, M.M. Bloebaum, and C.D. Dirksen Patient satisfaction with nurse-led telephone follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer BMC Cancer 10 1 2010 174
12. J. Earnshaw, and G. Lewis NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal: pharmaceutical industry perspective PharmacoEconomics 26 9 2008 725 727
13. M.L. Kimman, C.D. Dirksen, P. Lambin, and L.J. Boersma Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in breast cancer patients in their first year after treatment Health Qual Life Outcomes 7 1 2009 11
14. P. Dolan Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states Med Care 35 11 1997 1095 1108 (Pubitemid 127453463)
15. J.B. Oostenbrink, C.A.M. Bouwmans, M.A. Koopmanschap, and F.F.H. Rutten Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg 2004 College voor zorgverzekeringen Diemen
16. M.E. Goossens, M.P. Rutten-van Mlken, J.W. Vlaeyen, and S.M. van der Linden The cost diary: a method to measure direct and indirect costs in cost-effectiveness research J Clin Epidemiol 53 7 2000 688 695 (Pubitemid 30609621)
17. Statistics Netherlands. In: Statline. Den Haag. [accessed November 2009].
18. T.A. Hodgson Costs of illness in cost-effectiveness analysis. A review of the methodology PharmacoEconomics 6 6 1994 536 552
19. M.A. Koopmanschap, F.F. Rutten, B.M. van Ineveld, and L. van Roijen The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease J Health Econ 14 2 1995 171 189
20. J.L. Schafer Multiple imputation: a primer Stat Meth Med Res 8 1 1999 3 15 (Pubitemid 29222784)
21. H. Glick, J. Doshi, S. Sonnad, and D. Polsky Economic evaluation in clinical trials 2007 Oxford University Press New York p. 133-144
22. E. Fenwick, K. Claxton, and M. Sculpher Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves Health Econ. 10 8 2001 779 787 (Pubitemid 34041389)
23. K. Claxton The irrelevance of inference. a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies J Health Econ 18 3 1999 341 364 (Pubitemid 29242816)
24. E. Fenwick, B. O'Brien, and A. Briggs Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves - facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions Health Econ 13 5 2004 405 415 (Pubitemid 38660390)
25. L.M. Lamers, P.F.M. Stalmeier, J. McDonnell, P.F.M. Krabbe, and J.J. van Busschbach Measuring the quality of life in economic evaluations: the Dutch EQ-5D tariff Ned Tijdschr Geneesk 149 28 2005 1574 1578 (Pubitemid 40978328)
26. Health Care Insurance Board. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. Diemen, The Netherlands: Health Care Insurance Board; 2006.
27. A. Manca, N. Hawkins, and M. Sculpher Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility Health Econ 14 5 2005 487 496 (Pubitemid 40723857)
28. The Council for Public Health and Health Care. Sensible and sustainable Care. Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: The Council for Public Health and Health Care; 2006.
29. I. Koinberg, G.B. Engholm, A. Genell, and L. Holmberg A health economic evaluation of follow-up after breast cancer surgery: results of an rct study Acta Oncol 48 1 2009 99 104
30. E. Grunfeld, A. Gray, and D. Mant Follow-up of breast cancer in primary care vs specialist care: results of an economic evaluation Br J Cancer 79 7-8 1999 1227 1233 (Pubitemid 29087903)
31. K. Beaver, W. Hollingworth, and R. McDonald Economic evaluation of a randomized clinical trial of hospital versus telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer Br J Surg 96 12 2009 1406 1415
32. G.M. Freedman, T. Li, P.R. Anderson, N. Nicolaou, and A. Konski Health states of women after conservative surgery and radiation for breast cancer Breast Cancer Res Treat 121 2 2010 519 526
33. M. Lidgren, N. Wilking, B. Jnsson, and C. Rehnberg Resource use and costs associated with different states of breast cancer Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23 2 2007 223 231 (Pubitemid 46642729)
34. P.A. Ganz, A. Coscarelli, and C. Fred Breast cancer survivors: psychosocial concerns and quality of life Breast Cancer Res Treat 38 2 1996 183 199 (Pubitemid 26102146)