Clinical Oncology
Volume 22, Issue 10 , Pages 874-884 , December 2010

Results of a Quantitative Survey to Explore Both Perceptions of the Purposes of Follow-up and Preferences for Methods of Follow-up Delivery Among Service Users, Primary Care Practitioners and Specialist Clinicians after Cancer Treatment

  • G. Frew

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Improvement NHS Improvement (formally Cancer Services Collaborative Improvement Partnership), Leicester, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationAuthor for correspondence: G. Frew, NHS Improvement, 3rd Floor, St John’s House, East Street, Leicester LE1 6NB, UK. Tel: +44-116-222-5112; Fax: +44-116-222-5101.
    • ,
  • A. Smith

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Improvement NHS Improvement (formally Cancer Services Collaborative Improvement Partnership), Leicester, UK
    • ,
  • B. Zutshi

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Improvement NHS Improvement (formally Cancer Services Collaborative Improvement Partnership), Leicester, UK
    • ,
  • N. Young

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Improvement NHS Improvement (formally Cancer Services Collaborative Improvement Partnership), Leicester, UK
    • ,
  • A. Aggarwal

      Affiliations

    • Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, London, UK
    • ,
  • P. Jones

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Improvement NHS Improvement (formally Cancer Services Collaborative Improvement Partnership), Leicester, UK
    • ,
  • R. Kockelbergh

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Improvement NHS Improvement (formally Cancer Services Collaborative Improvement Partnership), Leicester, UK
    • ,
  • M. Richards

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health, London, UK
    • ,
  • E.J. Maher

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Improvement NHS Improvement (formally Cancer Services Collaborative Improvement Partnership), Leicester, UK

Received 18 November 2009 ,Revised 31 March 2010 ,Accepted 6 May 2010.

References 

  1. Forman D, Stockton D, Moller H, et al. Cancer prevalence in the UK: results from the EUOPREVAL study. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:648–654
  2. Earle CC, Cummings B, McLeod R, et al. Evidence to inform the cancer reform strategy: the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of follow-up services after cancer treatment. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2007;report available upon request
  3. Figueredo A, Rumble RB, Maroun J, et al. Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline. BMC Cancer. 2003;3:26
  4. Collins RF, Bekker HL, Dodwell DJ. Follow-up care of patients treated for breast cancer: a structured review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2004;30:19–35
  5. Grunfeld E, Noorani H, McGahan L, et al. Surveillance mammography after treatment of primary breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast. 2002;11:228–235
  6. Dixon JM, Montgomery D. Follow-up after breast cancer. Br Med J. 2008;336(7636):107–108
  7. Jeffery M, Mickey BE, Hider PN. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(Issue 1):Art. No.:CD002200 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002200.pub2.; Available from http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD002200/frame.html
  8. Richard CS, McLeod RS. Follow-up of patients after resection for colorectal cancer: a position paper of the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology and the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Can J Surg. 1997;40:90–100
  9. Rosen M, Chan L, Beart RW, Vukasin P, Anthone G. Follow-up of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41:1116–1126
  10. Tjandra JJ, Chan MKY. Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(11):1783–1799
  11. Scott JT, Harmsen M, Prictor MJ, Entwistle VA, Sowden AJ, Watt I. Recordings of summaries of consultations for people with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;Issue 2
  12. Harris K. The informal needs of patients with cancer and their families. Cancer. 1998;6(1):39–46
  13. Ataman OU, Barrett A, Davidson S, et al. Audit of effectiveness of routine follow-up clinics after radiotherapy for cancer: a report of the REACT working group of ESTRO. Radiother Oncol. 2004;73(2):237–249
  14. Frew G, Smith A, Zutshi B, et al. Seer statistics review 1975–2000. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2003;
  15. CancerResearchUK . www.info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/cervix/incidenceAccessed 6 July 2008
  16. Management of Cervical Cancer . www.sign.ac.ukJanuary 2008;
  17. Basen Engquist K, Bodurka DC. Medical and psychosocial issues in gynaecological cancer survivors. Cancer survivorship today and tomorrow. Berlin: Springer; 2007;pp. 114–121
  18. Hewitt M, Rowland JH, Yancik R. Cancer survivors in the United States: age health and disability. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;58:82–91
  19. Yabroff KR, Davis WW, Lamont EB, et al. Patient time costs associated with cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:14–23

PII: S0936-6555(10)00205-0

doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2010.06.008

Clinical Oncology
Volume 22, Issue 10 , Pages 874-884 , December 2010

Article Tools