Cost-effectiveness and quality of life in surgeon versus general practitioner-organised colon cancer surveillance: a randomised controlled trial

Abstract

ObjectiveTo 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.DesignRandomised controlled trial.SettingNorthern Norway Health Authority Trust, 4 trusts, 11 hospitals and 88 local communities.ParticipantsPatients surgically treated for colon cancer, hospital surgeons and community GPs.Intervention24-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.Main outcome measuresPrimary 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.Results110 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; Δ−2.23, p=0.20; EQ-5D index; Δ−0.10, p=0.48, EQ-5D VAS; Δ−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).ConclusionsGP-organised follow-up was associated with no decline in QoL, no increase in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis and cost savings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00572143.

Clinical Pattern of Recurrent Disease during the Follow-Up of Rectal Carcinoma

“…While few studies assessed the feasibility of transferring colon cancer FU to primary care [13,14], no such research has been performed for rectal cancer.…”

Cost effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for parents deciding about MMR vaccination: a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care

“…There is relatively little existing literature on the cost effectiveness of decision aids; in addition, their cost effectiveness in comparison with usual care has not been investigated for childhood immunisation decisions. Most of the studies undertaken have investigated the cost of decision aids in contexts other than vaccination; [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] only one study has considered cost effectiveness 26 and that concerned modes of delivery in pregnancy. A systematic review of the impact of decision aids on costs savings 27 has…”

Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Colon Cancer Recurrence: A Multicenter Cohort Study

“…Primary care-led follow-up was more cost-effective than hospital-led follow-up, mainly due to differences in organization and physician costs. 15,16 …”