H M Parry1, S Damery2, N P Mudondo3, P Hazlewood1, T McSkeane1, S Aung4, J Murray5, G Pratt4, P Moss1, D W Milligan6. 1. From the Cancer Sciences. 2. School of Primary Care Clinical Sciences. 3. School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, West Midlands B15 2TT, UK. 4. Centre for Haematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, West Midlands B9 5SS, UK and. 5. Centre for Clinical Haematology, Morris House, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, West Midlands B15 2TH, UK. 6. Centre for Haematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, West Midlands B9 5SS, UK and d.w.milligan@bham.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the commonest leukaemia in western society. Most patients are detected incidentally at an early stage and require 'watch and wait' follow-up. In the UK, management of Stage A0 CLL varies with some centres advising regular outpatient haematology follow-up, whereas others recommend management within primary care. The safety and effectiveness of these two management options are currently unknown. METHODS: An observational retrospective cohort study in outpatient Haematology clinics at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEH) and Birmingham Heartlands Hospital (BHH) and primary care practices in West Midlands, UK. All patients diagnosed with stable stage A0 CLL since 2002 at BHH or QEH were identified. At BHH, patients were discharged to primary care follow-up, whilst QEH patients remained under haematology for follow-up. Evidence of disease progression, need for treatment and overall mortality was documented. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-six Stage A0 CLL patients were identified. One hundred and five (43%) patients were discharged to primary care, whilst 141 (57%) patients were followed up in haematology outpatient clinics. No difference in mortality or need for treatment was found between the two groups. Of those discharged, 93 (66%) remained in primary care. CONCLUSION: The management of stable-stage A0 CLL within primary or secondary care leads to equivalent clinical outcomes. The prevalence of early-stage CLL is expected to increase with the ageing population and management within primary care should be considered as a potentially effective approach.
BACKGROUND:Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the commonest leukaemia in western society. Most patients are detected incidentally at an early stage and require 'watch and wait' follow-up. In the UK, management of Stage A0 CLL varies with some centres advising regular outpatient haematology follow-up, whereas others recommend management within primary care. The safety and effectiveness of these two management options are currently unknown. METHODS: An observational retrospective cohort study in outpatient Haematology clinics at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEH) and Birmingham Heartlands Hospital (BHH) and primary care practices in West Midlands, UK. All patients diagnosed with stable stage A0 CLL since 2002 at BHH or QEH were identified. At BHH, patients were discharged to primary care follow-up, whilst QEH patients remained under haematology for follow-up. Evidence of disease progression, need for treatment and overall mortality was documented. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-six Stage A0 CLL patients were identified. One hundred and five (43%) patients were discharged to primary care, whilst 141 (57%) patients were followed up in haematology outpatient clinics. No difference in mortality or need for treatment was found between the two groups. Of those discharged, 93 (66%) remained in primary care. CONCLUSION: The management of stable-stage A0 CLL within primary or secondary care leads to equivalent clinical outcomes. The prevalence of early-stage CLL is expected to increase with the ageing population and management within primary care should be considered as a potentially effective approach.
Authors: Ana C Oliveira; Esmeralda de la Banda; Eva Domingo-Domenech; Maite Encuentra; Santiago Mercadal; Alicia Domingo; Esther Alonso; Blanca Espinet; Javier Grau; Alberto Fernandez De Sevilla; Eva Gonzalez-Barca Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2011-03
Authors: David Oscier; Claire Dearden; Efrem Eren; Efrem Erem; Christopher Fegan; George Follows; Peter Hillmen; Tim Illidge; Estella Matutes; Don W Milligan; Andrew Pettitt; Anna Schuh; Jennifer Wimperis Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Kari G Rabe; Neil E Kay; Clive S Zent; Diane F Jelinek; Megan S Reinalda; Susan M Schwager; Debbie A Bowen; Susan L Slager; Curtis A Hanson; Timothy G Call Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Chris Pepper; Aneela Majid; Thet Thet Lin; Saman Hewamana; Guy Pratt; Renata Walewska; Stefan Gesk; Reiner Siebert; Simon Wagner; Ben Kennedy; Fiona Miall; Zadie A Davis; Ian Tracy; Anne C Gardiner; Paul Brennan; Robert K Hills; Martin J S Dyer; David Oscier; Chris Fegan Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: J L Binet; A Auquier; G Dighiero; C Chastang; H Piguet; J Goasguen; G Vaugier; G Potron; P Colona; F Oberling; M Thomas; G Tchernia; C Jacquillat; P Boivin; C Lesty; M T Duault; M Monconduit; S Belabbes; F Gremy Journal: Cancer Date: 1981-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sara Beiggi; Versha Banerji; Angela Deneka; Jane Griffith; Spencer B Gibson; James B Johnston Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 4.452