4.4 Article

Routine surveillance care after cancer treatment with curative intent

Journal

MEDICAL CARE
Volume 43, Issue 6, Pages 592-599

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000163656.62562.c4

Keywords

cancer care; cancer survivors; utilization

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [5R01CA79051-03] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Many consensus guidelines recommend routine surveillance to detect recurrent disease among cancer survivors. We compare surveillance care receipt to guideline recommendations. Methods: Cohorts of patients aged 30 years or older diagnosed with breast, colorectal, endometrial, lung, or prostate cancer between 1990 and 1995 and treated with curative intent were identified (n = 100 per site). Receipt and indications for examinations and procedures were abstracted from medical records for as long as 5 years after treatment. Kaplan-Meier product estimates were used to estimate time to initial and subsequent service receipt. Results: Most cancer patients received the recommended minimum number of physical examinations after treatment. In fact, a sizable number of cancer survivors received physical examinations at a frequency in excess of what is currently recommended. Similarly, most of these cancer survivors received recommended testing for local recurrence. Yet, less than two thirds of colorectal cancer patients received recommended colon examinations in the initial year after treatment. Among colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients who received recommended initial local recurrence testing, repeat testing tended to occur more frequently than what is currently recommended. The use of testing for metastatic disease that is not recommended in guidelines is also commonplace among these cancer survivors. Conclusions: Among cohorts of cancer patients, we found wide variation in, the use of surveillance care, including patterns of care receipt reflective of both underuse and overuse relative to guideline recommendations. Clinical reasons for these variations and the cost and health implications deserve further study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available