K E Brennan1, S F Hall2,3, T E Owen3, R J Griffiths4, Y Peng5. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences. 2. Department of Otolaryngology. 3. Department of Oncology. 4. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, and. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON.
Abstract
Background: The actual practices of routine follow-up after curative treatment for head-and-neck cancer are unknown, and existing guidelines are not evidence-based. Methods: This retrospective population-based study used administrative data to describe 5 years of routine follow-up care in 3975 head-and-neck cancer patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2012 in Ontario. Results: The mean number of visits per year declined during the follow-up period (from 7.8 to 1.9, p < 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving visits in concordance with guidelines ranged from 80% to 45% depending on the follow-up year. In at least 50% of patients, 1 head, neck, or chest imaging test was performed in the first follow-up year; that proportion subsequently declined (p < 0.001). Factors associated with follow-up practices included comorbidity, tumour site, treatment, geographic region, and physician specialty (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Given current practice variation and the absence of an evidence-based standard, the challenge in identifying a single optimal follow-up strategy might be better addressed with a harmonized approach to providing individualized follow-up care.
Background: The actual practices of routine follow-up after curative treatment for head-and-neck cancer are unknown, and existing guidelines are not evidence-based. Methods: This retrospective population-based study used administrative data to describe 5 years of routine follow-up care in 3975 head-and-neck cancerpatients diagnosed between 2007 and 2012 in Ontario. Results: The mean number of visits per year declined during the follow-up period (from 7.8 to 1.9, p < 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving visits in concordance with guidelines ranged from 80% to 45% depending on the follow-up year. In at least 50% of patients, 1 head, neck, or chest imaging test was performed in the first follow-up year; that proportion subsequently declined (p < 0.001). Factors associated with follow-up practices included comorbidity, tumour site, treatment, geographic region, and physician specialty (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Given current practice variation and the absence of an evidence-based standard, the challenge in identifying a single optimal follow-up strategy might be better addressed with a harmonized approach to providing individualized follow-up care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Head-and-neck cancer; imaging; practice variation; routine follow-up
Authors: Frank E Johnson; Michael H Johnson; Marc F Clemente; Randal C Paniello; Katherine S Virgo Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-06-21 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Anil K Chaturvedi; Eric A Engels; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Brenda Y Hernandez; Weihong Xiao; Esther Kim; Bo Jiang; Marc T Goodman; Maria Sibug-Saber; Wendy Cozen; Lihua Liu; Charles F Lynch; Nicolas Wentzensen; Richard C Jordan; Sean Altekruse; William F Anderson; Philip S Rosenberg; Maura L Gillison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jensen Tan; Jennifer Muir; Natalie Coburn; Simron Singh; David Hodgson; Refik Saskin; Alex Kiss; Lawrence Paszat; Abraham El-Sedfy; Eva Grunfeld; Craig Earle; Calvin Law Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-07-11
Authors: Aaron T Seaman; Kristen L Seligman; Khanh K Nguyen; Zaid Al-Qurayshi; Nicholas D Kendell; Nitin A Pagedar Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-08-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Neerav Goyal; Andrew Day; Joel Epstein; Joseph Goodman; Evan Graboyes; Scharukh Jalisi; Ana P Kiess; Jamie A Ku; Matthew C Miller; Aru Panwar; Vijay A Patel; Assuntina Sacco; Vlad Sandulache; Amy M Williams; Daniel Deschler; D Gregory Farwell; Cherie-Ann Nathan; Carole Fakhry; Nishant Agrawal Journal: Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Date: 2021-11-30
Authors: Stephen F Hall; Colleen Webber; Patti A Groome; Christopher M Booth; Paul Nguyen; Yvonne DeWit Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 4.452