Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Beaver, Kinta; Williamson, Susan; Sutton, Chris J; Hollingworth, William; Gardner, Anne; Allton, Barbara; Abdel-Aty, Mohamed; Blackwood, Karen; Burns, Sean; Curwen, Debbie; Ghani, Rauf; Keating, Patrick; Murray, Sandra; Tomlinson, Anne; Walker, Beverley; Willett, Mark; Wood, Nick; Martin-Hirsch, Pierre (2017)
Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: B700
Objective \ud To evaluate the effectiveness of nurse-led telephone follow-up (TFU) for Stage I endometrial cancer patients. \ud \ud Design \ud Multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial\ud \ud Setting \ud Five centres in the North West of England\ud \ud Sample \ud 259 women treated for Stage I endometrial cancer attending hospital outpatient clinics for routine follow-up\ud \ud Methods \ud Participants were randomly allocated to receive traditional hospital based follow-up (HFU) or nurse-led TFU. \ud \ud Main outcome measures \ud Primary outcomes were psychological morbidity (State Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI-S) and patient satisfaction with information. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with service, quality of life, and time to detection of recurrence.\ud \ud Results \ud STAI-S scores post-randomisation were similar between groups (mean [SD] TFU 33.0 [11·0], HFU 35.5 [13.0]). The estimated between group difference in STAI was 0·7 (95%CI -1·9 to 3·3); the CI lies above the non-inferiority limit (-3·5) indicating non-inferiority of TFU. There was no significant difference between groups in reported satisfaction with information (OR 0·9, 95% CI 0·4 to 2·1, p=0·83). The HFU group were more likely to report being kept waiting for their appointment (p=0.001), that they did not need any information (p=0.003) and were less likely to report that the nurse knew about their particular case and situation (p=0.005). \ud \ud Conclusions \ud TFU provides an effective alternative to HFU for Stage I endometrial cancer patients, with no reported physical or psychological detriment. Patient satisfaction with information was high, with similar levels between groups
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 2. Baekelandt MM, Castiglione M, on behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Endometrial carcinoma: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2009; 20(supplement 4): iv29-31
    • 3. Tjalma WAA, Van Dam PA, Markar AP, Cruikshank DJ. The clinical value and the cost-effectiveness of follow-up in endometrial cancer patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2004; 14(5): 931-37.
    • 4. Kew FM, Roberts AP, Cruickshank DJ (2005). The role of routine follow-up after gynaecological malignancy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005; 15(3): 413-19
    • 5. Salvesen HB, Akslen LA, Iversen T, Iversen OE. Recurrence of endometrial carcinoma and the value of routine follow-up. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104 (11): 1302-07
    • 6. Department of Health. Guidance on Commissioning Cancer Services: Improving Outcomes in Gynaecological Cancers, 1999. Department of Health; London
    • 7. Department of Health. Cancer Reform Strategy, 2007. Department of Health; London
    • 8. Department of Health. National Cancer Survivorship Initiative Vision, 2010. Department of Health and Macmillan Cancer Support; London, UK
    • 10. NHS Improvement. Rapid review of current service provision following cancer treatment, 2010. NHS Improvement; Leicester, UK
    • 11. Lewis R, Neal RD, Williams NH, France B, Wilkinson C, Hendry M et al. Nurse-led vs. conventional physician led follow-up for patients with cancer: systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2009; 65(4): 706-23.
    • 12. Cox K, Wilson E (2003). Follow-up for people with cancer: nurse-led services and telephone interventions. J Adv Nurs 2003; 43(1): 51-61
    • 13. Independent Cancer Taskforce. Achieving world class cancer outcomes: a strategy for England 2015- 2020. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/achieving_world-class_cancer_outcomes_- _a_strategy_for_england_2015-2020.pdf
    • 14. Beaver K, Tysver-Robinson D, Campbell M, Twomey M, Williamson S, Hindley A et al. Comparing hospital and telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: a randomised equivalence trial. BMJ 2009; 338: a3147
    • 15. Beaver K, Hollingworth W, McDonald R, Dunn G, Tysver-Robinson D, Thomson L et al. Economic evaluation of hospital versus telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: evidence from a randomized trial. Br J Surg 2009; 96: 1406-15
    • 16. Beaver K, Campbell M, Williamson S, Procter S, Sheridan J, Heath J, Susnerwala S. An exploratory trial comparing telephone and hospital follow-up after treatment for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14: 1201-09
    • 17. Spielberger CD. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 1983 Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.
    • 18. Bowling A. Measuring Disease. 2nd Edition. 2001 Open University Press; Buckingham
    • 19. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365-76
    • 20. Greimel E, Nordin A, Lanceley A, Creutzberg CL, van de Poll-Franse LV, Radisic VB et al. Psychometric validation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Endometrial Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ EN24). Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 183-90
    • 21. Chen MS, Lara PN, Dang JHT, Paterniti DA, Kelly K. Twenty years post-NIH Revitalization Act: Enhancing minority participation in clinical trials (EMPaCT): Laying the groundwork for improving minority clinical trial accrual. Cancer 2014; 120(7 suppl): 1091-96
    • 22. Symonds RP, Lord K, Mitchell AJ, Raghavan D. Recruitment of ethnic minorities into cancer clinical trials: experience from the front lines. Br J Cancer 2012; 107: 1017-21
    • 23. Shirley MH, Barnes I, Sayeed S, Ali R. Incidence of breast and gynaecological cancers by ethnic group in England, 2001-2007: a descriptive study. BMC Cancer 2014; 14:979
    • 24. Smits A, Lopes A, Das N, Bekkers R, Kent E, McCullough Z, Galaal K. Nurse-led telephone follow-up: improving options for women with endometrial cancer. Cancer Nurs 2014; 38: 232-38
    • 25. Leeson S, Stuart N, Sylvestre Y, Hall L, Whitaker R. Gynaecological cancer follow-up: national survey of current practice in the UK. BMJ Open 2013; 3:e002859
    • 26. Nordin AJ (on behalf of the National Group of Gynaecology NSSG Leads). Mode of detection of recurrent gynecological malignancy: does routine follow-up delay diagnosis and treatment? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006; 16:1746-48.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article