Towards a personalised approach to aftercare: a review of cancer follow-up in the UK.
BACKGROUND
Due to growth in cancer survivorship and subsequent resource limitations, the current UK position of follow-up services is unsustainable. With people living longer after a cancer diagnosis, supported self-management for ongoing treatment-related chronic conditions is a fundamental component of aftercare services. Alternative models to traditional hospital aftercare require consideration in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.


METHODS
'Evidence to Inform the Cancer Reform Strategy: The Clinical Effectiveness of Follow-Up Services after Treatment for Cancer' (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2007) has been updated using a number of quality-controlled databases. Correspondence with experts was also sought to identify current initiatives.


RESULTS
The review highlights a shift towards patient empowerment via individualised and group education programmes aimed at increasing survivor's ability to better manage their condition and the effects of treatment, allowing for self-referral or rapid access to health services when needed. The role of specialist nurses as key facilitators of supportive aftercare is emphasised, as is a move towards technology-based aftercare in the form of telephone or web-based services.


CONCLUSIONS
The challenge will be replacing traditional clinic follow-up with alternative methods in a cost-effective way that is either as equally effective, or more so. To establish this, more rigorous trials are needed, with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up assessments.


CONCLUSIONS
Increasing patient confidence to initiate follow-up specific to their needs is likely to increase the workload of primary care providers, who will need training for this.
National Cancer Survivorship Initiative, Self-Management Workstream, Macmillan Cancer Support, London, England. NDavies@macmillan.org.uk
Nicola J
NJ
Davies
Lynn
L
Batehup
D000359:Aftercare; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000401:mortality / Q000628:therapy*; D057285:Precision Medicine; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D017741:Survivors; D006113:United Kingdom
Colorectal Dis. 2009 Sep;11(7):756-8
19708095
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Feb 20;24(6):848-55
16418496
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD002200
17253476
Can J Surg. 1997 Apr;40(2):90-100
9126121
Med Care. 1999 Jan;37(1):5-14
10413387
Breast J. 2007 Nov-Dec;13(6):571-4
17983398
J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Mar;23(3):254-9
18197456
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec 1;25(34):5374-80
18048818
Br J Cancer. 2005 Feb 14;92(3):430-3
15685236
Br J Cancer. 2008 Sep 2;99(5):704-10
18728659
Chest. 1999 Jun;115(6):1494-9
10378539
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005 Oct;93(3):255-60
16132530
BMJ. 1996 Sep 14;313(7058):665-9
8811760
Psychooncology. 2002 Jul-Aug;11(4):346-55
12203747
BMJ. 2002 Nov 16;325(7373):1145
12433764
BMJ. 1997 Jan 18;314(7075):174-7
9022429
Br J Cancer. 2007 Jun 4;96(11):1625-32
17486134
Health Technol Assess. 2017 May;21(32):1-86
28641703
J Urol. 2006 Sep;176(3):1122-6; discussion 1126
16890706
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 1;26(10):1684-90
18375897
J Clin Oncol. 2005 May 20;23(15):3552-61
15908666
Breast. 2009 Apr;18(2):100-2
19233652
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2009 Feb;13(1):2-8
19119079
Colorectal Dis. 2008 Mar;10(3):222-30
17645572
Breast. 2002 Apr;11(2):163-9
14965664
BMJ. 2009 Jan 14;338:a3147
19147478
Dis Colon Rectum. 1998 Sep;41(9):1116-26
9749495
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2004 Jun;8(2):109-17; discussion 118-20
15171968
Acta Oncol. 2009;48(1):99-104
18766474
Cancer Treat Rev. 2004 Feb;30(1):19-35
14766124