Follow-up of gynecological cancer patients after treatment – the views of European experts in gynecologic oncology

Authors


  • Conflict of interest The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.

  • Please cite this article as: Vistad I, Cvancarova M, Salvesen, HB. Follow-up of gynecological cancer patients after treatment – the views of European experts in gynecologic oncology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012; 91:1286-1292.

Ingvild Vistad, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sorlandet Hospital HF, Service Box 416, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway., E-mail: ingvild.vistad@sshf.no

Abstract

Objective. Follow-up after treatment for gynecological cancer demands large resources. There is a lack of evidence of efficacy. The aim of this survey was to explore follow-up routines and views on follow-up care among European experts in gynecological oncology. Design. Web-based structured survey. Setting. Survey distributed to members of the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) and the Nordic Society of Gynecologic Oncology (NSGO). Population. The study population comprised members of NSGO and ESGO. Methods. An anonymous e-survey was sent with two additional reminders by e-mail through an electronic web-link to all members of both societies. Main outcome measures. Surveillance routines. The clinical experts’ evaluation of evidence and view of follow-up in hospitals vs. at general practitioners (GPs). Results. The number of visits recommended by a majority of the responders was in line with current guidelines. The use of surveillance tests varied considerably. Significantly more responders from low economy countries preferred conventional hospital follow-up for all patients compared with responders from high economy countries, who considered follow-up by GPs adequate in low-risk groups (p < 0.001). Conclusions. Follow-up routines after gynecological cancer vary in Europe. According to the majority of the responders of this survey targeting European experts in gynecological oncology, follow-up by GPs may be an option for low-risk patients. New follow-up routines should preferentially be based on prospective trials comparing conventional follow-up of gynecological cancer patients with alternative methods of care, assessing survival, detection of recurrence, and quality of life.

Ancillary