AIM: Colorectal Nurse Specialist (CNS) clinics for postoperative follow up of colorectal cancer aim to maintain clinical efficacy while reducing costs. We prospectively studied the efficacy and financial implications of such a clinic. METHOD: This was a prospective study of all patients attending CNS clinics over 3 years. A lower-risk protocol for patients with Dukes A was used over 3 years and a higher-risk protocol for patients with Dukes B, C or D was used over 5 years. Department of Health Pricing Charts were used to cost the follow-up protocols, and adjustment was performed to calculate the cost of each quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-three patients entered into this nurse-led follow-up protocol implemented by the CNS clinic between 2005 and 2007. The Dukes stages and proportions of patients in each stage were as follows: stage A, 13%; stage B, 8%; stage C, 36.3%; and stage D, 9.3%. Ninety-seven per cent underwent curative treatment and 2.6% had palliative treatment. Twenty-one per cent of patients developed recurrent disease. Overall actuarial 5-year survival was 80% and recurrences had a 30% 5-year actuarial survival. The total cost per patient for 3 years of follow up was £1506 and £1179 for lower-risk rectal and nonrectal cancers, respectively. The adjusted cost for each QALY gained for lower-risk tumours was £1914. The total cost per patient with higher-risk tumours was £1814 and £1487 for rectal and nonrectal tumours, respectively. The adjusted cost for each QALY gained was £2180 for higher-risk tumours. CONCLUSIONS: This clinic demonstrated cost-effective detection of recurrent disease. Computed tomography (CT) was the most sensitive alert test. As all recurrences were detected within 4 years, we suggest that this is the indicated time to follow up.
AIM: Colorectal Nurse Specialist (CNS) clinics for postoperative follow up of colorectal cancer aim to maintain clinical efficacy while reducing costs. We prospectively studied the efficacy and financial implications of such a clinic. METHOD: This was a prospective study of all patients attending CNS clinics over 3 years. A lower-risk protocol for patients with Dukes A was used over 3 years and a higher-risk protocol for patients with Dukes B, C or D was used over 5 years. Department of Health Pricing Charts were used to cost the follow-up protocols, and adjustment was performed to calculate the cost of each quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-three patients entered into this nurse-led follow-up protocol implemented by the CNS clinic between 2005 and 2007. The Dukes stages and proportions of patients in each stage were as follows: stage A, 13%; stage B, 8%; stage C, 36.3%; and stage D, 9.3%. Ninety-seven per cent underwent curative treatment and 2.6% had palliative treatment. Twenty-one per cent of patients developed recurrent disease. Overall actuarial 5-year survival was 80% and recurrences had a 30% 5-year actuarial survival. The total cost per patient for 3 years of follow up was £1506 and £1179 for lower-risk rectal and nonrectal cancers, respectively. The adjusted cost for each QALY gained for lower-risk tumours was £1914. The total cost per patient with higher-risk tumours was £1814 and £1487 for rectal and nonrectal tumours, respectively. The adjusted cost for each QALY gained was £2180 for higher-risk tumours. CONCLUSIONS: This clinic demonstrated cost-effective detection of recurrent disease. Computed tomography (CT) was the most sensitive alert test. As all recurrences were detected within 4 years, we suggest that this is the indicated time to follow up.