Follow-up of breast cancer in primary care vs specialist care: results of an economic evaluation

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing primary-care-centred follow-up of breast cancer patients with the current standard practice of specialist-centred follow-up showed no increase in delay in diagnosing recurrence, and no increase in anxiety or deterioration in health-related quality of life. An economic evaluation of the two schemes of follow-up was conducted concurrent with the RCT. Because the RCT found no difference in the primary clinical outcomes, a cost minimization analysis was conducted. Process measures of the quality of care such as frequency and length of visits were superior in primary care. Costs to patients and to the health service were lower in primary care. There was no difference in total costs of diagnostic tests, with particular tests being performed more frequently in primary care than in specialist care. Data are provided on the average frequency and length of visits, and frequency of diagnostic testing for breast cancer patients during the follow-up period. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Patient's needs and preferences in routine follow-up after treatment for breast cancer

The purpose of the study was to analyse the needs of women who participated in a routine follow-up programme after treatment for primary breast cancer. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a postal questionnaire among women without any sign of relapse during the routine follow-up period. The questionnaire was sent 2-4 years after primary surgical treatment. Most important to patients was information on long-term effects of treatment and prognosis, discussion of prevention of breast cancer and hereditary factors and changes in the untreated breast. Patients preferred additional investigations (such as X-ray and blood tests) to be part of routine follow-up visits. Less satisfaction with interpersonal aspects and higher scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scale were related to stronger preferences for additional investigation. Receiving adjuvant hormonal or radiotherapy was related to a preference for a more intensive follow-up schedule. There were no significant differences between patients treated with mastectomy compared to treated with breast-conserving therapy. During routine follow-up after a diagnosis of breast cancer, not all patients needed all types of information. When introducing alternative follow-up schedules, individual patients' information needs and preferences should be identified early and incorporated into the follow-up routine care, to target resources and maximise the likelihood that positive patient outcomes will result

Impact of primary kidney disease on the effects of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease: secondary analyses of the EMPA-KIDNEY trial

Background: The EMPA KIDNEY trial showed that empagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary composite outcome of kidney disease progression or cardiovascular death in patients with chronic kidney disease mainly through slowing progression. We aimed to assess how effects of empagliflozin might differ by primary kidney disease across its broad population. Methods: EMPA-KIDNEY, a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, was conducted at 241 centres in eight countries (Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the UK, and the USA). Patients were eligible if their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 20 to less than 45 mL/min per 1·73 m2, or 45 to less than 90 mL/min per 1·73 m2 with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) of 200 mg/g or higher at screening. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 10 mg oral empagliflozin once daily or matching placebo. Effects on kidney disease progression (defined as a sustained ≥40% eGFR decline from randomisation, end-stage kidney disease, a sustained eGFR below 10 mL/min per 1·73 m2, or death from kidney failure) were assessed using prespecified Cox models, and eGFR slope analyses used shared parameter models. Subgroup comparisons were performed by including relevant interaction terms in models. EMPA-KIDNEY is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03594110. Findings: Between May 15, 2019, and April 16, 2021, 6609 participants were randomly assigned and followed up for a median of 2·0 years (IQR 1·5–2·4). Prespecified subgroupings by primary kidney disease included 2057 (31·1%) participants with diabetic kidney disease, 1669 (25·3%) with glomerular disease, 1445 (21·9%) with hypertensive or renovascular disease, and 1438 (21·8%) with other or unknown causes. Kidney disease progression occurred in 384 (11·6%) of 3304 patients in the empagliflozin group and 504 (15·2%) of 3305 patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·71 [95% CI 0·62–0·81]), with no evidence that the relative effect size varied significantly by primary kidney disease (pheterogeneity=0·62). The between-group difference in chronic eGFR slopes (ie, from 2 months to final follow-up) was 1·37 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (95% CI 1·16–1·59), representing a 50% (42–58) reduction in the rate of chronic eGFR decline. This relative effect of empagliflozin on chronic eGFR slope was similar in analyses by different primary kidney diseases, including in explorations by type of glomerular disease and diabetes (p values for heterogeneity all >0·1). Interpretation: In a broad range of patients with chronic kidney disease at risk of progression, including a wide range of non-diabetic causes of chronic kidney disease, empagliflozin reduced risk of kidney disease progression. Relative effect sizes were broadly similar irrespective of the cause of primary kidney disease, suggesting that SGLT2 inhibitors should be part of a standard of care to minimise risk of kidney failure in chronic kidney disease. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and UK Medical Research Council

Patients' views of routine hospital follow-up: a qualitative study of women with breast cancer in remission.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the experience of specialist hospital follow-up among 109 women with breast cancer in remission. METHODS: Qualitative interviews explored views of follow-up at an outpatient clinic. RESULTS: Continuity of care and an unrushed consultation were considered to be both desirable and efficient. There were concerns that discontinuity led to a lack of personal and case familiarity and communication difficulties. Access to cancer expertise, the availability of diagnostic tests and specialist facilities were valued features of hospital follow-up, and further analysis indicated that this was particularly important in the early stages of follow-up. DISCUSSION: A preference for continuity of care may suggest that GP follow-up would be preferred, but access to specialist services is valued and may be of particular importance during the early stages of follow-up. The diversity of patients' needs during follow-up must be recognised when formulating policy

What patient information doesn't tell you A patient evaluation of breast cancer information materials

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:3181.124405(3) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect on time to diagnosis of recurrence and on quality of life of transferring primary responsibility for follow up of women with breast cancer in remission from hospital to general practice. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with 18 month follow up in which women received routine follow up either in hospital or in general practice. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: 296 women with breast cancer in remission receiving regular follow up care at district general hospitals in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time between first presentation of symptoms to confirmation of recurrence; quality of life measured by specific dimensions of the SF-36 schedule, the EORTC symptom scale, and hospital anxiety and depression scale. RESULTS: Most recurrences (18/26, 69%) presented as interval events, and almost half (7/16, 44%) of the recurrences in the hospital group presented first to general practice. The median time to hospital confirmation of recurrence was 21 days in the hospital group (range 1-376 days) and 22 days in the general practice group (range 4-64). The differences between groups in the change in SF-36 mean scores from baseline were small: -1.8 (95% confidence interval -7.2 to 3.5) for social functioning, 0.5 (-4.1 to 5.1) for mental health, and 0.6 (-3.6 to 4.8) for general health perception. The change from baseline in the mean depression score was higher in the general practice group at the mid-trial assessment (difference 0.6, 0.1 to 1.2) but there was no significant difference between groups in the anxiety score or the EORTC scales. CONCLUSION: General practice follow up of women with breast cancer in remission is not associated with increase in time to diagnosis, increase in anxiety, or deterioration in health related quality of life. Most recurrences are detected by women as interval events and present to the general practitioner, irrespective of continuing hospital follow up

Comparison of breast cancer patient satisfaction with follow-up in primary care versus specialist care: results from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Routine follow-up of breast cancer patients in specialist clinics is standard practice in most countries. Follow-up involves regularly scheduled breast cancer check-ups during the disease-free period. The aims of follow-up are to detect breast cancer recurrence and to provide psychosocial support to the patient; however, little is known about patients' views on breast cancer follow-up. AIM: To assess the effect on patient satisfaction of transferring primary responsibility for follow-up of women with breast cancer in remission from hospital outpatient clinics to general practice. METHOD: Randomized controlled trial with 18 months' follow-up in which women received routine follow-up either in hospital outpatient clinics or from their own general practitioner. Two hundred and ninety-six women with breast cancer in remission receiving regular follow-up care at two district general hospitals in England were included in the study. Patient satisfaction was measured by means of a self-administered questionnaire supplied three times during the 18-month study period. RESULTS: The general practice group selected responses indicating greater satisfaction than did the hospital group on virtually every question. Furthermore, in the general practice group there was a significant increase in satisfaction over baseline; a similar significant increase in satisfaction over baseline was not found in the hospital group. CONCLUSION: Patients with breast cancer were more satisfied with follow-up in general practice than in hospital outpatient departments. When discussing follow-up with breast cancer patients, they should be provided with complete and accurate information about the goals, expectations, and limitations of the follow-up programme so that they can make an informed choice