Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT: All patients who undergo surgery for colon cancer are followed up according to the guidelines of the Norwegian Gastrointestinal Cancer Group (NGICG). These guidelines state that the aims of follow-up after surgery are to perform quality assessment, provide support and improve survival. In Norway, most of these patients are followed up in a hospital setting. We describe a multi-centre randomized controlled trial to test whether these patients can be followed up by their general practitioner (GP) without altering quality of life, cost effectiveness and/or the incidence of serious clinical events.Patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer with histological grade Dukes's Stage A, B or C and below 75 years of age are eligible for inclusion. They will be randomized after surgery to follow-up at the surgical outpatient clinic (control group) or follow-up by the district GP (intervention group). Both study arms comply with the national NGICG guidelines. The primary endpoints will be quality of life (QoL) (measured by the EORTC QLQ C-30 and the EQ-5D instruments), serious clinical events (SCEs), and costs. The follow-up period will be two years after surgery, and quality of life will be measured every three months. SCEs and costs will be estimated prospectively. The sample size was 170 patients.There is an ongoing debate on the best method of follow-up for patients with CRC. Due to a wide range of follow-up programmes and paucity of randomized trials, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the best combination and frequency of clinic (or family practice) visits, blood tests, endoscopic procedures and radiological examinations that maximize the clinical outcome, quality of life and costs. Most studies on follow-up of CRC patients have been performed in a hospital outpatient setting. We hypothesize that postoperative follow-up of colon cancer patients (according to national guidelines) by GPs will not have any impact on patients' quality of life. Furthermore, we hypothesize that there will be no increase in SCEs and that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will improve.This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration number is: NCT00572143.

SUBMITTER: Augestad KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2474836 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Augestad Knut M KM Vonen Barthold B Aspevik Ranveig R Nestvold Torunn T Ringberg Unni U Johnsen Roar R Norum Jan J Lindsetmo Rolv-Ole RO

BMC health services research 20080625

<h4>Background</h4>All patients who undergo surgery for colon cancer are followed up according to the guidelines of the Norwegian Gastrointestinal Cancer Group (NGICG). These guidelines state that the aims of follow-up after surgery are to perform quality assessment, provide support and improve survival. In Norway, most of these patients are followed up in a hospital setting. We describe a multi-centre randomized controlled trial to test whether these patients can be followed up by their general ...[more]

PMID: 18578856

Similar Datasets

Project description:To assess whether colon cancer follow-up can be organised by general practitioners (GPs) without a decline in the patient's quality of life (QoL) and increase in cost or time to cancer diagnoses, compared to hospital follow-up.Randomised controlled trial.Northern Norway Health Authority Trust, 4 trusts, 11 hospitals and 88 local communities.Patients surgically treated for colon cancer, hospital surgeons and community GPs.24-month follow-up according to national guidelines at the community GP office. To ensure a high follow-up guideline adherence, a decision support tool for patients and GPs were used.Primary outcomes were QoL, measured by the global health scales of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C-30) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness and time to cancer diagnoses.110 patients were randomised to intervention (n=55) or control (n=55), and followed by 78 GPs (942 follow-up months) and 70 surgeons (942 follow-up months), respectively. Compared to baseline, there was a significant improvement in postoperative QoL (p=0.003), but no differences between groups were revealed (mean difference at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 and 24-month follow-up appointments): Global Health; ?-2.23, p=0.20; EQ-5D index; ?-0.10, p=0.48, EQ-5D VAS; ?-1.1, p=0.44. There were no differences in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis (GP 35 days vs surgeon 45 days, p=0.46); 14 recurrences were detected (GP 6 vs surgeon 8) and 7 metastases surgeries performed (GP 3 vs surgeon 4). The follow-up programme initiated 1186 healthcare contacts (GP 678 vs surgeon 508), 1105 diagnostic tests (GP 592 vs surgeon 513) and 778 hospital travels (GP 250 vs surgeon 528). GP organised follow-up was associated with societal cost savings (£8233 vs £9889, p<0.001).GP-organised follow-up was associated with no decline in QoL, no increase in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis and cost savings.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00572143.

Project description:ContextThe use of ethnic identifiers in health systems is recommended in several European countries as a means to identify and address heath inequities. There are barriers to implementation that have not been researched.ObjectiveThis study examines whether and how ethnicity data can be collected in Irish general practices in a meaningful and acceptable way.MethodsQualitative case study data generation was informed by Normalization Process Theory (NPT) constructs about 'sense' making and 'engagement'. It consisted of individual interviews and focus group discussions based on visual participatory techniques. There were 70 informants, including 62 general practitioner (GP) users of diverse ethnic backgrounds recruited through community organisations and eight GPs identified through an inter-agency steering group. Data were analysed according to principles of thematic analysis using NPT.ResultsThe link between ethnicity and health was often considered relevant because GP users grasped connections with genetic (skin colour, lactose intolerance), geographic (prevalence of disease, early years exposure), behavioural (culture/food) and social determinant (housing) factors. The link was less clear with religion. There was some scepticism and questions about how the collection of data would benefit GP consultations and concerns regarding confidentiality and the actual uses of these data (e.g. risk of discrimination, social control). For GPs, the main theme discussed was relevance: what added value would it bring to their consultations and was it was their role to collect these data? Their biggest concern was about data protection issues in light of the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The difficulty in explaining a complex concept such as 'ethnicity' in the limited time available in consultations was also worrying.ConclusionsImplementation of an ethnicity identifier in Irish general practices will require a strong rationale that makes sense to GP users, and specific measures to ensure that its benefits outweigh any potential harm. This is in line with both our participants' views and the EU GDPR.

Project description:ObjectivesThe I CARE study (Improving Care After colon canceR treatment in the Netherlands) aims to compare surgeon-led to general practitioner (GP)-led colon cancer survivorship care. Recruitment to the trial took longer than expected. In this descriptive study, recruitment is critically reviewed.SettingPatients were recruited from eight Dutch medical centres.ParticipantsPatients treated with curative intent for stages I-III colon cancer. Target patient sample size was calculated at 300.InterventionsPatients were randomised to surgeon-led (usual) versus GP-led care, with or without access to an eHealth application (Oncokompas).Outcome measuresBaseline characteristics of (non-)participants, reasons for non-participation and strategies to improve recruitment were reviewed.ResultsOut of 1238 eligible patients, 353 patients were included. Of these, 50 patients dropped out shortly after randomisation and before start of the intervention, resulting in a participation rate of 25%. Participants were on average slightly younger (68.1 years vs 69.3 years) and more often male (67% vs 50%) in comparison to non-participants. A total of 806 patients declined participation for reasons most often relating to research (57%), including the wish to remain in specialist care (31%) and too much effort to participate (12%). Some patients mentioned health (9%) and confrontation with the disease (5%) as a reason. In 43 cases, GPs declined participation, often related to the study objective, need for financial compensation and time restraints. The generally low participation rate led to concerns about reaching the target sample size. Methods to overcome recruitment challenges included changes to the original recruitment procedure and the addition of new study centres.ConclusionsChallenges were faced in the recruitment to a randomised trial on GP-led colon cancer survivorship care. Research on the transition of care requires sufficient time, funding and support base among patients and healthcare professionals. These findings will help inform researchers and policy-makers on the development of future practices.Trial registration numberNTR4860.

Project description:BackgroundSCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months.MethodsThe study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p.Findings150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients.InterpretationSC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors.FundingVictorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Dataset Information

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.

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets