Mette Moustgaard Jeppesen1, Ole Mogensen2,3, Dorte G Hansen4, Stinne H Bergholdt5, Pernille T Jensen2,3. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Lillebaelt Hospital, Kolding, Sygehusvej 24, 6000, Kolding, Denmark. Mette.M.Jeppesen@dadlnet.dk. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark. 3. Faculty of Health, Institute for Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 4. Research Unit of General Practice, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J. B. Winsløws vej 9A, 5000, Odense C, Denmark. 5. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Sdr Boulevard, J.B. Winsløws vej 4, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we present the existing evidence regarding follow-up care after endometrial cancer, including content of follow-up and type of provider. We furthermore discuss the future perspectives for follow-up care and research in the field. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently published randomized controlled trials show that nurse-led telephone follow-up and patient-initiated follow-up are feasible alternatives to routine hospital-based follow-up. No randomized or prospective study has evaluated the effect of routine follow-up on survival. Hence, current knowledge is derived from retrospective studies with the inherent risk of bias. The most important method for recurrence detection is a review of symptoms. There is no evidence to support a survival benefit from the use of routine physical examinations, additional tests, or imaging. One in three of the women attending hospital-based follow-up experience unmet needs, and alternative models for follow-up focused on survivorship care and empowerment should be tested.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we present the existing evidence regarding follow-up care after endometrial cancer, including content of follow-up and type of provider. We furthermore discuss the future perspectives for follow-up care and research in the field. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently published randomized controlled trials show that nurse-led telephone follow-up and patient-initiated follow-up are feasible alternatives to routine hospital-based follow-up. No randomized or prospective study has evaluated the effect of routine follow-up on survival. Hence, current knowledge is derived from retrospective studies with the inherent risk of bias. The most important method for recurrence detection is a review of symptoms. There is no evidence to support a survival benefit from the use of routine physical examinations, additional tests, or imaging. One in three of the women attending hospital-based follow-up experience unmet needs, and alternative models for follow-up focused on survivorship care and empowerment should be tested.
Authors: Amy L Cooper; Jean M Dornfeld-Finke; Helen W Banks; Diane D Davey; Susan C Modesitt Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Eva Grunfeld; Mark N Levine; Jim A Julian; Doug Coyle; Barbara Szechtman; Doug Mirsky; Shailendara Verma; Susan Dent; Carol Sawka; Kathleen I Pritchard; David Ginsburg; Marjorie Wood; Tim Whelan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-01-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Grunfeld; R Fitzpatrick; D Mant; P Yudkin; R Adewuyi-Dalton; J Stewart; D Cole; M Vessey Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: P Morice; C Levy-Piedbois; S Ajaj; P Pautier; C Haie-Meder; C Lhomme; P Duvillard; D Castaigne Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: E Podczaski; P Kaminski; K Gurski; C MacNeill; J A Stryker; K Singapuri; T E Hackett; J Sorosky; R Zaino Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1992-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jessica S Gorzelitz; Amy Trentham Dietz; John M Hampton; Ryan J Spencer; Erin Costanzo; Kelli Koltyn; Ronald E Gangnon; Polly A Newcomb; Lisa A Cadmus-Bertram Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 2.532