Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jul 24;3(7):e002859.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002859. Print 2013.

Gynaecological cancer follow-up: national survey of current practice in the UK

Simon Leeson  1 , Nick Stuart, Yvonne Sylvestre, Liz Hall, Rhiannon Whitaker
Affiliations

Gynaecological cancer follow-up: national survey of current practice in the UK

Simon Leeson et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: To establish a baseline of national practice for follow-up after treatment for gynaecological cancer.

Design: Questionnaire survey.

Setting: Gynaecological cancer centres and units.

Geographical location uk participants: Members of the British Gynaecological Cancer Society and the National Forum of Gynaecological Oncology Nurses.

Interventions: A questionnaire survey.

Outcome measures: To determine schedules of follow-up, who provides it and what routine testing is used for patients who have had previous gynaecological cancer.

Results: A total of 117 responses were obtained; 115 (98%) reported hospital scheduled regular follow-up appointments. Two involved general practitioners. Follow-up was augmented or replaced by telephone follow-up in 29 responses (25%) and patient-initiated appointments in 38 responses (32%). A total of 80 (68%) cancer specialists also offered combined follow-up clinics with other specialties. Clinical examinations for hospital-based follow-up were mainly performed by doctors (67% for scheduled regular appointments and 63% for patient-initiated appointments) while telephone follow-up was provided in the majority by nurses (76%). Most respondents (76/117 (65%)) provided routine tests, of which 66/76 (87%) reported carrying out surveillance tests for ovarian cancer, 35/76 (46%) for cervical cancer, 8/76 (11%) for vulval cancer and 7/76 (9%) for endometrial cancer. Patients were usually discharged after 5 years (82/117 (70%)), whereas three (3%) were discharged after 4 years, nine (8%) after three years and one (1%) after 2 years.

Conclusions: Practice varied but most used a standard hospital-based protocol of appointments for 5 years and routine tests were performed usually for women with ovarian cancer. A minority utilised nurse-led or telephone follow-up. General practitioners were rarely involved in routine care. A randomised study comparing various models of follow-up could be considered.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Kew FM, Cruickshank DJ. Routine follow-up after treatment for a gynaecological cancer: a survey of practice. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16:380–4 - PubMed
    1. Kerr-Wilson RH, McCrum A. Follow-up of patients with gynaecological cancer. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;35:298–9 - PubMed
    1. Kew FM, Galaal K, Manderville H, et al. Professionals’ and patients’ views of routine follow-up: a questionnaire survey. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17:557–60 - PubMed
    1. Kew F, Galaal K, Bryant A, et al. Evaluation of follow-up strategies for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;4:CD006119 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006119.pub2 (accessed 16 Apr 2013) - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lajer H, Elnergaard S, Christensen RD, et al. Survival after stage IA endometrial cancer; can follow-up be altered? A prospective nationwide Danish survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91:976–82 - PubMed