Follow up protocols for women with cervical cancer after primary treatment

Lanceley, Anne; McCormack, Mary; Armstrong, Eleanor S.; Fiander, Alison; Jefferies, Hilary; Barrett, Maggie; Brown, Jean K.; Burton, Sarah D.; Leach, M.; Morton, Pamela; Smith, L. A.

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008767

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Une méta-analyse réalisée par le groupe Cochrane en 2013 ne retrouvait pas de supé-riorité d'un protocole de surveillance par rapport à un autre en termes d'amélioration de la probabilité de survie ou de la qualité de vie, devant la diversité des populations et des traitements décrits [54]. Une consultation de surveillance rapprochée (tous les 3-4 mois) durant les deux premières années est justifiée en raison du risque maximal de rechute pendant cette période.…”

Section: Intervalles De Suivi Et Recommandations Actuellesunclassified

Suivi après radiothérapie pour un cancer du col utérin

Cao¹,

Mazeron²,

Barillot³

2015

Cancer/Radiothérapie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Intervalles De Suivi Et Recommandations Actuellesunclassified

Suivi après radiothérapie pour un cancer du col utérin

Cao¹,

Mazeron²,

Barillot³

2015

Cancer/Radiothérapie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, post-treatment surveillance (PTS) features in many European countries' screening programmes [2] but follow-up frequency and duration varies greatly within and between countries [3,4]. Previously in Ireland, cytology-only was recommended at 6 months post-treatment, then at 18 months and annually, for 5-10 years thereafter [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More importantly, even less is known about effectiveness of PTS in Ireland and in other countries. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) attempted to compare different follow-up cervical cancer PTS protocols but concluded that no available evidence exists [4]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term costs of introducing HPV-DNA post-treatment surveillance to national cervical cancer screening in Ireland

Agapova

Duignan²,

Smith³

et al. 2015

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Co-testing (cytology plus human papillomavirus DNA testing) as part of cervical cancer surveillance in Ireland increases one-time testing costs. Of interest to policy makers was the long-term impact of these costs accompanied by decreases in intensity of recalls for women with no detected abnormalities. Methods A cost-analysis of cytology-only and co-testing was implemented using decision analytic modeling, aggregating testing utilization and costs for each of the two strategies over 12 years. Results Aggregated incremental costs of the co-testing strategy were positive for the first 3 years but became negative thereafter, generating a cost savings of roughly €20 million in favor of the cytology-only strategy over a 12-year period. Results were robust over a range of sensitivity analyses with respect to discount and attrition rates. Discussion This analysis provided valuable information to policy makers contributing to the introduction of co-testing for post-treatment surveillance in Ireland.

show abstract

“…Radiation-induced complications may arise insidiously, increasing by approximately 0.2% per year for up to 25 years after treatment 9 ; when required, operative interventions are often technically challenging and associated with significant potential morbidity. 8 There are recognized limitations in the existing literature about late complications after cervical cancer: first, there are few randomized controlled trials or observational studies that assess late urinary complications 10,11 ; second, many of the commonly used metrics for reporting radiation morbidity combine signs and symptoms into categories that may not be understood or easily communicated to patients, and third, there is no evidence-based patient follow-up regimen after cervical cancer treatment, 12 and therefore clinical awareness of these complications may be limited.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%