Using technology to deliver cancer follow-up: a systematic review

Rebekah Dickinson, Susan Hall, Jenny E Sinclair, Christine Bond, Peter Murchie, Rebekah Dickinson, Susan Hall, Jenny E Sinclair, Christine Bond, Peter Murchie

Abstract

Background: People with cancer receive regular structured follow up after initial treatment, usually by a specialist in a cancer centre. Increasing numbers of cancer survivors prompts interest in alternative structured follow-up models. There is worldwide evidence of increasing interest in delivering cancer follow-up using technology. This review sough evidence supporting the use of technology in cancer follow-up from good quality randomised controlled trials.

Method: A search strategy was developed to identify randomised controlled trials and reviews of randomised trials of interventions delivering some aspect of structured cancer follow-up using new technologies. Databases searched were: All EBM Reviews; Embase; Medline (No Revisions); Medline (Non-Indexed Citations), and CAB Abstracts. Included articles were published in English between 2000 and 2014. Key words were generated by the research question. Papers were read independently and appraised using a standardised checklist by two researchers, with differences being resolved by consensus [J Epidemiol Community Health, 52:377-384, 1998]. Information was collected on the purpose, process, results and limitations of each study. All outcomes were considered, but particular attention paid to areas under consideration in the review question.

Results: The search strategy generated 22879 titles. Following removal of duplicates and abstract review 17 full papers pertaining to 13 randomised controlled studies were reviewed. Studies varied in technologies used and the elements of follow-up delivered, length of follow-up, tumour type and numbers participating. Most studies employed only standard telephone follow-up. Most studies involved women with breast cancer and included telephone follow-up. Together the results suggest that interventions comprising technology had not compromised patient satisfaction or safety, as measured by symptoms, health related quality of life or psychological distress. There was insufficient evidence to comment on the cost effectiveness of technological cancer follow-up interventions.

Conclusions: Modern technology could deliver cancer follow-up that is acceptable and safe. More research is required to develop cancer follow-up systems which exploit modern technology, which should be assessed using randomised trials, with consistent outcomes, so that evidence on the acceptability, safety, cost effectiveness and impact in quality of life of technological follow-up can accumulate and be made available to patients, professionals and policy makers.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.

References

    1. Brennan ME, Butow P, Marven M, Spillane AJ, Boyle FM. Survivorship care after breast cancer treatment- Experiences and preferences of Australian women. Breast. 2011;20:271–277. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2010.12.006.
    1. Macbride SK, Whyte F. Survivorship and the cancer follow-up clinic. Eur J Cancer Care. 1998;7:47–55. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2354.1998.00065.x.
    1. Hall S, Samuel L, Murchie P. Shared follow-up for cancer: developing the model with patients and GPs. Fam Pract. 2011;28:554–564. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmr012.
    1. Lewis R, Neal R, Williams N, France B, Hendry M, Russell D, Hughes D, Russell I, Stuart N, Weller D, Wilkinson C. Follow up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2009;59:e234–e247.
    1. Maddams J, Brewster D, Gavin A, Steward J, Elliot J, Utley M, Moller H. Cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom: estimates for 2008. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:541–547. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605148.
    1. Okera M, Baker NA, Hayward AM, Selva-Nayagam S. Oncology workforce issues: the challenge of the outpatient clinic. Intern Med J. 2011;41:499–503. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2011.02506.x.
    1. Green J, Murchie P, Lee AJ. Does place of residence affect the management of cutaneous melanoma? Analysis of a database from Northern Scotland. J Rural Health. 2013. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12011.
    1. NHS Improvement Rapid Review of current service provision following cancer treatment. Available at (accessed 15th May 2013)
    1. Sood S, Mbarika V, Jugoo S, Dookhy R, Doarn CR, Prakash N, Merrell RC. What is telemedicine? A collection of 104 peer-reviewed perspectives and theoretical underpinnings. Telemed J E Health. 2007;13:573–590. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2006.0073.
    1. McLean S, Protti D, Sheikh A. Telehealthcare for long term conditions. BMJ. 2011;342:374–378. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d374.
    1. Beaver K, Tysver-Robinson D, Campbell M, Twomey M, Williamson S, Hindley A, Susnerwala S, Dunn G, Luker K. Comparing hospital and telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: randomised equivalence trial. BMJ. 2009;338:a3147. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a3147.
    1. Kearney N, McCann L, Norrie J, Taylor L, Gray P, McGee-Lennon M, Sage M, Miller M, Maguire R. Evaluation of a mobile phone-based, advanced symptom management system (ASyMS) in the management of chemotherapy-related toxicity. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17:437–444. doi: 10.1007/s00520-008-0515-0.
    1. Kimman ML, Bloebaum MMF, Dirksen CD, Houben RMA, Lambin P, Boersma LJ. Patient satisfaction with nurse-led telephone follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:174. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-174.
    1. Downs S, Black N. The feasibility of creating a check-list for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377–384. doi: 10.1136/jech.52.6.377.
    1. Davison BJ, Degner LF. Feasibility of using a computer-assisted intervention to enhance the way women with breast cancer communicate with their physicians. Cancer Nurs. 2002;25:417–424. doi: 10.1097/00002820-200212000-00001.
    1. Hegel MT, Lyons KD, Hull JG, Kaufman P, Urquhart L, Li Z, Ahles TA. Feasibility study of a randomized controlled trial of a telephone-delivered problem-solving-occupational therapy intervention to reduce participation restrictions in rural breast cancer survivors undergoing chemotherapy. Psychooncology. 2011;20:1092–1101. doi: 10.1002/pon.1830.
    1. Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Voogd AC, Falger P, Gijsen BCM, Thuring M, Lenssen A, Van Der Ent F, Verkeyn J, Haekens C, Hupperets P, Nuytinck JKS, Van Riet Y, Brenninkmeijer SJ, Scheijmans LJEE, Kessels A, Lambin P, Boersma L. 2011. 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. 2011;47:1027–1036. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.12.003.
    1. Marcus AC, Garrett KM, Cella D, Wenzel L, Brady MJ, Fairclough D, Pate-Willig M, Barnes D, Emsbo SP, Kluhsman BC, Crane L, Sedlacek S, Flynn PJ. Can telephone counselling post-treatment improve psychosocial outcomes among early stage breast cancer survivors? Psychooncology. 2010;19:923–932. doi: 10.1002/pon.1653.
    1. Sandgren AK, McCaul KD. Short-term effects of telephone therapy for breast cancer patients. Health Psychol. 2003;22:310–315.
    1. Matthew AG, Currie KL, Irvine J, Ritvo P, Santa Mina D, Jamnicky L, Nam R, Trachtenberg J. Serial personal digital assistant data capture of health-related quality of life: a randomized controlled trial in a prostate cancer clinic. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:38. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-38.
    1. Harrison JD, Young JM, Solomon MJ, Butow PN, Secomb R, Masya L. Randomized pilot evaluation of the supportive care intervention “CONNECT” for people following surgery for colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:622–631. doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e31820bc152.
    1. Sikorskii A, Given CW, Given B, Jeon S, You M. Differential symptom reporting by mode of administration of the assessment: automated voice response system versus a live telephone interview. Med Care. 2009;47:866–874. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a31d00.
    1. Sikorskii A, Given CW, Given B, Jeon S, Decker V, Decker D, Champion V, McCorkle R. Symptom management for cancer patients: a trial comparing two multimodal interventions. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007;34:253–264. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.11.018.
    1. Yun YH, Lee KS, Kim KW, Park SY, Lee ES, Noh DY, Kim S, Oh JH, Jung SY, Chung KW, Lee YJ, Jeong SY, Park KJ, Shim YM, Zo JI, Park JW, Kim YA, Shon EJ, Park S. Web-based tailored education program for disease-free cancer survivors with cancer related fatigue: A randomised controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1296–1303. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.2979.
    1. Beaver K, Hollingworth W, McDonald R, Dunn G, Tysver-Robinson D, Thomson L, Hindley AC, Susnerwala SS, Luker K. Economic evaluation of a randomized clinical trial of hospital versus telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1406–1415. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6753.
    1. Kroenke K, Theobald D, Wu J, Norton K, Morrison G, Carpenter J, Tu W. Effect of telecare management on pain and depression in patients with cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2010;304:163–171. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.944.
    1. Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Voogd AC, Falger P, Gijsen BC, Thuring M, Lenssen A, van der Ent F, Verkeyn J, Haekens C, Hupperets P, Nuytinck JK, van Riet Y, Brenninkmeijer SJ, Scheijmans LJ, Kessels A, Lambin P, Boersma LJ. Economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after curative treatment for breast cancer: results of an RCT. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:1175–1185. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.12.017.
    1. Van den Brink JL, Moorman PW, de Boer M, Hop WCJ, Pruyn JFA, Verwoerd CDA, van Bemmel JH. Impact on quality of life of a telemedicine system supporting head and neck cancer patients: a controlled trial during the postoperative period at home. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;14:198–205.
    1. Cox K, Wilson E. Follow-up for people with cancer: nurse-led services and telephone interventions. J Adv Nurs. 2003;43:51–61. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02672.x.
    1. Murchie P, Nicolson MC, Hannaford PC, Raja EA, Lee AJ, Campbell NC. Patient satisfaction with GP-led melanoma follow up: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer. 2010;102:1447–1455. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605638.
    1. Hazin R, Qaddoumi I. Teleoncology: current and future applications for improving cancer care globally. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:204–210. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70288-8.
    1. Hede K. Teleoncology gaining acceptance with physicians, patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1531–1533. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq426.
    1. Palkhivala A. Canada develops models of teleoncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1566–1567. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr449.
    1. Sudhamony S, Nandakumar K, Binu PJ, Issac NS. Telemedicine and tele-health services for cancer-care delivery in India. IET Commun. 2008;2:231–236. doi: 10.1049/iet-com:20060701.
    1. Allen A, Hayes J. Patient satisfaction with teleoncology: a pilot study. Telemed J. 1995;1:41–46. doi: 10.1089/tmj.1.1995.1.41.
    1. Ricke J, Bartelink H. Telemedicine and its impact on cancer management. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:826–833. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00057-5.
    1. Coelho JJ, Arnold A, Nayler J, Tischkowitz M, MacKay J. An assessment of the efficacy of cancer genetic counselling using real-time videoconferencing technology (telemedicine) compared to face-to-face consultations. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:2257–2261. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.06.020.
    1. Weinstein RS, López AM, Barker GP, Krupinski EA, Descour MR, Scott KM, Richter LC, Beinar SJ, Holcoms MJ, Bartels PH, McNeely RA, Bhattacharyya AK. The innovative bundling of teleradiology, telepathology, and teleoncology services. IBM Syst J. 2007;46:69–84.
    1. Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottrop S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79:736–771. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.08.006.
    1. Franklin VL1, Waller A, Pagliari C, Greene SA. A randomized controlled trial of Sweet Talk, a text-messaging system to support young people with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2006;23:1332–1338. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01989.x.
    1. Bennett DA, Emberson JR. Text messaging in smoking cessation: the txt2stop trial. Lancet. 2011;378:6–7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60882-9.
    1. Kaiser Permanente (2012) My health manager. 2012. . (Accessed 20 Feb 2014)
    1. Prior S. ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Atlanta, USA: ACM; 2010. Involving adults with severe speech and physical impairments in the design of CHAMPION.
    1. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register. 2014. (accessed 20th February 2014)
    1. Eysenbach G. Impact of Internet Instructions on Men with Prostate Cancer. ISRCTN10001875. doi:10.1186/ISRCTN10001875. (accessed 20th February 2014)
    1. Orruño E. Evaluation of an e-health intervention for cancer patients’ support. ISRCTN00735390. doi:10.1186/ISRCTN00735390. (accessed 20th February 2014)

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere