Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: evaluation of a supported self-management and remote surveillance programme

Jane Frankland, Hazel Brodie, Deborah Cooke, Claire Foster, Rebecca Foster, Heather Gage, Jake Jordan, Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray, Ruth Pickering, Alison Richardson, Jane Frankland, Hazel Brodie, Deborah Cooke, Claire Foster, Rebecca Foster, Heather Gage, Jake Jordan, Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray, Ruth Pickering, Alison Richardson

Abstract

Background: Alternative models of cancer follow-up care are needed to ameliorate pressure on services and better meet survivors' long-term needs. This paper reports an evaluation of a service improvement initiative for the follow-up care of prostate cancer patients based on remote monitoring and supported self-management.

Methods: This multi-centred, historically controlled study compared patient reported outcomes of men experiencing the new Programme with men experiencing a traditional clinic appointment model of follow-up care, who were recruited in the period immediately prior to the introduction of the Programme. Data were collected by self-completed questionnaires, with follow up measurement at four and eight months post-baseline. The primary outcome was men's unmet survivorship needs, measured by the Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs Survey. Secondary outcomes included cancer specific quality of life, psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with care. The analysis was intention to treat. Regression analyses were conducted for outcomes at each time point separately, controlling for pre-defined clinical and demographic variables. All outcome analyses are presented in the paper. Costs were compared between the two groups.

Results: Six hundred and twenty-seven men (61%) were consented to take part in the study (293 in the Programme and 334 in the comparator group.) Regarding the primary measure of unmet survivorship needs, 25 of 26 comparisons favoured the Programme, of which 4 were statistically significant. For the secondary measures of activation for self-management, quality of life, psychological well-being and lifestyle, 20 of 32 comparisons favoured the Programme and 3 were statistically significant. There were 22 items on the satisfaction with care questionnaire and 13 were statistically significant. Per participant costs (British pounds, 2015) in the 8 month follow up period were slightly lower in the programme than in the comparator group (£289 versus £327). The Programme was acceptable to patients.

Conclusion: The Programme is shown to be broadly comparable to traditional follow-up care in all respects, adding to evidence of the viability of such models.

Keywords: Cancer; Cost-effectiveness; Effectiveness; Evaluation; Follow-up care; Patient-led; Patient-triggered; Prostate; Remote surveillance; Supported self-management.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study received ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service, East of England – Cambridge South (reference number 11/EE/1021.) All participants completed a written consent form, separately for the questionnaire survey and for interview. The study was undertaken in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of study participation

References

    1. Maddams J, Utley M, Moller H. Projections of cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom, 2010-2040. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(7):1195–1202. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.366.
    1. DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Siegel RL, Stein KD, Kramer JL, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64.
    1. Harrington CB, Hansen JA, Moskowitz M, Todd BL, Feuerstein M. It's not over when it's over: long-term symptoms in cancer survivors--a systematic review. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2010;40(2):163–181. doi: 10.2190/PM.40.2.c.
    1. Harrison JD, Young JM, Price MA, Butow PN, Solomon MJ. What are the unmet supportive care needs of people with cancer ? A systematic review. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2009;17.
    1. Paterson C, Robertson A, Smith A, Nabi G. Identifying the unmet supportive care needs of men living with and beyond prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2015;19(4):405–418. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2014.12.007.
    1. Ream E, Quennell A, Fincham L, Faithfull S, Khoo V, Wilson-Barnett J, et al. Supportive care needs of men living with prostate cancer in England: a survey. Br J Cancer. 2008;98(12):1903–1909. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604406.
    1. Steginga SK, Occhipinti S, Dunn J, Gardiner RA, Heathcote P, Yaxley J. The supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer (2000) Psychooncology. 2001;10(1):66–75. doi: 10.1002/1099-1611(200101/02)10:1<66::AID-PON493>;2-Z.
    1. Macmillan Cancer Support DH, Improvement NHS. The National Cancer Survivorship Initiative Vision. London. 2010.
    1. O'Brien R, Rose PW, Campbell C, Weller D, Neal RD, Wilkinson C, et al. Experiences of follow-up after treatment in patients with prostate cancer: a qualitative study. BJU Int. 2010;106(7):998–1003. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09292.x.
    1. Howell D, Hack TF, Oliver TK, Chulak T, Mayo S, Aubin M, et al. Models of care for post-treatment follow-up of adult cancer survivors: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the evidence. Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice. 2012;6(4):359–371. doi: 10.1007/s11764-012-0232-z.
    1. Independent Cancer Taskforce. Achieving World-Class Cancer Outcomes. A Strategy for England 2015-2020. 2015.
    1. NHS Improvement. Innovation to implementation: Stratified pathways of care for people living with or beyond cancer. A ‘how to guide’. London; 2013.
    1. Jefford M, Rowland J, Grunfeld E, Richards M, Maher J, Glaser A. Implementing improved post-treatment care for cancer survivors in England, with reflections from Australia, Canada and the USA. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(1):14–20. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.554.
    1. Koinberg I, Holmberg L, Fridlund B. Breast cancer patients' satisfaction with a spontaneous system of check-up visits to a specialist nurse. Scand J Caring Sci. 2002;16(3):209–215. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-6712.2002.00040.x.
    1. Sheppard C, Higgins B, Wise M, Yiangou C, Dubois D, Kilburn S. Breast cancer follow up: a randomised controlled trial comparing point of need access versus routine 6-monthly clinical review. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2009;13(1):2–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2008.11.005.
    1. Siddika A, Tolia-Shah D, Pearson TE, Richardson NGB, Ross AHM. Remote surveillance after colorectal cancer surgery: an effective alternative to standard clinic-based follow-up. Color Dis. 2015;17(10):870–875. doi: 10.1111/codi.12970.
    1. Brown L, Payne S, Royle G. Patient initiated follow up of breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2002;11(4):346–355. doi: 10.1002/pon.576.
    1. Chapman D, Cox E, Britton PD, Wishart GC. Patient-led breast cancer follow up. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2009;18(2):100–2.
    1. Batehup L, Porter K, Gage H, Williams P, Simmonds P, Lowson E, et al. Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(7):2063–2073. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3595-x.
    1. Koinberg I, Engholm G, Genell A, Holmberg L. A health economic evaluation of follow-up after breast cancer surgery: results of an rct study. Acta Oncol. 2009;48(1):99–104. doi: 10.1080/02841860802314712.
    1. Koinberg IL, Fridlund B, Engholm GB, Holmberg L. Nurse-led follow-up on demand or by a physician after breast cancer surgery: a randomised study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2004;8(2):109–117. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2003.12.005.
    1. Benney M, McFarlane J. Evaluation of the Clinical Effectiveness of the PSA Tracker - The Bath Experience. British Assocation of Urology Nursing2015.
    1. Kirshbaum MN, Dent J, Stephenson J, Topping AE, Allinson V, McCoy M, et al. Open access follow-up care for early breast cancer: a randomised controlled quality of life analysis. European Journal Of Cancer Care. 2017;26(4).
    1. The Movember Foundation. Introducing TrueNTH. [Available from: .
    1. Prostate Cancer UK. TrueNTH [Available from: .
    1. Frankland J, Brodie H, Cooke D, Foster C, Foster R, Gage H, et al. Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: protocol for an evaluation of a nurse-led supported self-management and remote surveillance programme. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):656. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3643-4.
    1. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. The TG. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(3):361–366. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.94.3.361.
    1. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008;337.
    1. Hodgkinson K, Butow P, Hunt GE, Pendlebury S, Hobbs KM, Lo SK, et al. The development and evaluation of a measure to assess cancer survivors' unmet supportive care needs: the CaSUN (Cancer Survivors' unmet needs measure) Psycho-Oncology. 2007;16(9):796–804. doi: 10.1002/pon.1137.
    1. Emery J, Doorey J, Jefford M, King M, Pirotta M, Hayne D, et al. Protocol for the ProCare Trial: a phase II randomised controlled trial of shared care for follow-up of men with prostate cancer. BMJ Open. 2014;4(3):e004972-e.
    1. Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, Sandler HM, Sanda MG. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;56(6):899–905. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00858-X.
    1. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, et al. The functional Assessment of Cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3):570–579. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570.
    1. Vieweg BW, Hedlund JL. The general health questionnaire (GHQ): a comprehensive review. J Oper Psychiatry. 1983;14(2):74–81.
    1. Hodges LJ, Humphris GM. Fear of recurrence and psychological distress in head and neck cancer patients and their carers. Psychooncology. 2009;18(8):841–848. doi: 10.1002/pon.1346.
    1. Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, Tusler M. Development of the patient activation measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(4 Pt 1):1005–1026. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x.
    1. Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M. Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(6 Pt 1):1918–1930. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x.
    1. Prochaska JJ, Sallis JF. Reliability and validity of a fruit and vegetable screening measure for adolescents. The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. 2004;34(3):163–165. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00264-7.
    1. Godin G, Shephard RJ. A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Canadian journal of applied sport sciences Journal canadien des sciences appliquees au sport. 1985;10(3):141–146.
    1. Batehup L, Cranshaw G, Lowson E, Lynall A, Martin F, Simmonds P, et al. Improving patient experience of cancer follow up: redesign and evaluation of adult cancer aftercare services for breast, colorectal, and testicular patients, at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. National Cancer Survivorship Initiative Conference: ‘Exploring the challenges and opportunities of integrating cancer survivorship care’ 16.11.12; London2012.
    1. Department for Communities and Local Government. The English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015 – Guidance. Gov.UK2015 [Available from: .
    1. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit costs of health and social care 2015. 2015.
    1. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. 14 ed. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.; 2015.
    1. GL Assessment. General Health Questionnaire 2018 [Available from: .
    1. Skolarus TA, Dunn RL, Sanda MG, Chang P, Greenfield TK, Litwin MS, et al. Minimally important difference for the expanded Prostate Cancer index composite short form. Urology. 2015;85(1):101–105. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.044.
    1. University of Michigan. Characteristics of EPIC domain-specific summary and subscale scores for 112 controls without prostate cancer Michigan [Available from: .
    1. Treweek S, Zwarenstein M. Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials. 2009;10(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-10-37.
    1. Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2002.
    1. Tyler KM, Normand S-LT, Horton NJ. The use and abuse of multiple outcomes in randomized controlled depression trials. Contemporary clinical trials. 2011;32(2):299–304. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2010.12.007.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever