The cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies after cancer treatment: a systematic literature review

Impact of different follow-up regimens on health-related quality of life and costs in endometrial cancer patients: Results from the TOTEM randomized trial

PURPOSE

To investigate whether intensive follow-up (INT) after surgery for endometrial cancer impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare costs compared to minimalist follow-up (MIN), in the absence of evidence supporting any benefit on 5-year overall survival.

METHODS

In the TOTEM trial, HRQoL was assessed using the SF-12 and the Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) questionnaires at baseline, after 6 and 12 months and then annually up to 5 years of follow-up. Costs were analyzed after 4 years of follow-up from a National Health Service perspective, stratified by risk level. The probability of missing data was analyzed for both endpoints.

RESULTS

1847 patients were included in the analyses. The probability of missing data was not influenced by the study arms (MIN vs INT OR: 0.97 95%CI: 0.87-1.08). Longitudinal changes in HRQoL scores did not differ between the two follow-up regimens (MIN vs INT SF-12 PCS: -0.573, CI95%: -1.31; 0.16; SF-12 MCS: -0.243, CI95%: -1.08; 0.59; PGWB: -0.057, CI95%: -0,88; 0,77). The mean cost difference between the intensive and minimalist arm was €531 for low-risk patients and €683 for high-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

In the follow-up of endometrial cancer after surgery, a minimalist treatment regimen did not affect quality of life and was cost-saving in both low-risk and high-risk recurrence patients. As previous results showed no survival benefit, a minimalist approach is justified. The relevant proportion of missing data on secondary outcomes of interest could be a critical point that deserves special attention.

Evaluation of the nurse-assisted eHealth intervention 'eHealth@Hospital-2-Home' on self-care by patients with heart failure and colorectal cancer post-hospital discharge: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) and colorectal cancer (CRC) are prone to comorbidity, a high rate of readmission, and complex healthcare needs. Self-care for people with HF and CRC after hospitalisation can be challenging, and patients may leave the hospital unprepared to self-manage their disease at home. eHealth solutions may be a beneficial tool to engage patients in self-care.

METHODS

A randomised controlled trial with an embedded evaluation of intervention engagement and cost-effectiveness will be conducted to investigate the effect of eHealth intervention after hospital discharge on the self-efficacy of self-care. Eligible patients with HF or CRC will be recruited before discharge from two Norwegian university hospitals. The intervention group will use a nurse-assisted intervention-eHealth@Hospital-2-Home-for six weeks. The intervention includes remote monitoring of vital signs; patients' self-reports of symptoms, health and well-being; secure messaging between patients and hospital-based nurse navigators; and access to specific HF and CRC health-related information. The control group will receive routine care. Data collection will take place before the intervention (baseline), at the end of the intervention (Post-1), and at six months (Post-2). The primary outcome will be self-efficacy in self-care. The secondary outcomes will include measures of burden of treatment, health-related quality of life and 30- and 90-day readmissions. Sub-study analyses are planned in the HF patient population with primary outcomes of self-care behaviour and secondary outcomes of medication adherence, and readmission at 30 days, 90 days and 6 months. Patients' and nurse navigators' engagement and experiences with the eHealth intervention and cost-effectiveness will be investigated. Data will be analysed according to intention-to-treat principles. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis.

DISCUSSION

This protocol will examine the effects of the eHealth@ Hospital-2-Home intervention on self-care in two prevalent patient groups, HF and CRC. It will allow the exploration of a generic framework for an eHealth intervention after hospital discharge, which could be adapted to other patient groups, upscaled, and implemented into clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials.gov (ID 301472).

A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient-initiated follow-up after cancer

BACKGROUND

The traditional cancer follow-up (FU) model for cancer survivors is by scheduled clinic appointments; however, this is not tailored to patient needs and is becoming unsustainable. Patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) may be a more effective and flexible alternative. This systematic review aims to analyse all existing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of PIFU compared with other FU models that include routinely scheduled appointments in adults who have been treated with curative intent for any type of cancer.

METHODS

Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification, selection and data extraction. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos were searched for systematic reviews to March 2022, and Cochrane CENTRAL was searched for RCTs from 2018 (April 2023). Ongoing trial registers were searched (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, April 2023). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing PIFU with an alternative FU model in adult cancer survivors. Risk of bias assessment was via the Cochrane risk of bias tool-2. Meta-analysis was precluded by clinical heterogeneity and results were reported narratively.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs were included (six breast, two colorectal, one endometrial cancer and one melanoma, total n = 1754); all studies had risk of bias concerns, particularly relating to how missing data were handled, and populations were unlikely to be representative. Limited findings in breast cancer suggested that type of FU does not affect recurrence detection or patient-related outcomes, while PIFU may reduce the number of clinic visits. Adding patient-led surveillance to routine FU may increase melanoma detection. Evidence for other types of cancer is too limited to draw firm conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

PIFU may be a viable FU model in breast cancer, but further research is needed for other types of cancer and on long-term outcomes. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181424).

Systematic reviews as a "lens of evidence": Determinants of cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening

Systematic reviews with economic components are important decision tools for stakeholders seeking to evaluate technologies, such as breast cancer screening (BCS) programs. This overview of systematic reviews explores the determinants of the cost-effectiveness of BCS and assesses the quality of secondary evidence. The search identified 30 systematic reviews that reported on the determinants of the cost-effectiveness of BCS, including the costs of breast cancer and BCS. While the quality of the reviews varied widely, only four out of 30 papers were considered to be of a high quality. We did not identify publication bias in the original evidence on the cost-effectiveness of mammography screening; however, we highlight a need for improved clarity in both reporting and data verification. The reviews consisted mainly of studies from high-income countries. Breast cancer costs varied widely among the studies. Factors leading to higher costs included: time (diagnosis and last months before death), later stage or metastases, recurrence of the disease, age below 64 years and type of follow-up (more intensive or more specialized). Overall, screening with mammography was considered cost-effective in the age range 50-69 years in Western European and Northern American countries but not for older or younger women. Its cost-effectiveness was questionable for low-income settings and Asia. Mammography screening was more cost-effective with biennial screening compared to annual screening and single reading using computer-aided detection vs double reading. No information on the cost-effectiveness of ultrasonography was found, and there is much uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness of CBE because of methodological limitations.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

Cost-Effectiveness of Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Surveillance in Patients With Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

A multicenter randomized clinical trial in France found an overall survival benefit of web-based patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based surveillance after initial treatment for lung cancer compared with conventional surveillance. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of this PRO-based surveillance in lung cancer patients.

METHODS

This medico-economic analysis used data from the clinical trial, augmented by abstracted chart data and costs of consultations, imaging, transportations, information technology, and treatments. Costs were calculated based on actual reimbursement rates in France, and health utilities were estimated based on scientific literature review. Willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and €90,000 per QALY were used to define a very cost-effective and cost-effective strategy, respectively. Average annual costs of experimental and control surveillance approaches were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per life-year gained and QALY gained, from the health insurance payer perspective. One-way and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Average annual cost of surveillance follow-up was €362 lower per patient in the PRO arm (€941/year/patient) compared to control (€1,304/year/patient). The PRO approach presented an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €12,127 per life-year gained and €20,912 per QALY gained. The probabilities that the experimental strategy is very cost-effective and cost-effective were 97% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance of lung cancer patients using web-based PRO reduced the follow-up costs. Compared to conventional monitoring, this surveillance modality represents a cost-effective strategy and should be considered in cancer care delivery.