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 Nov 18;2013(11):CD010299.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010299.pub2.

Patient-reported outcome measures for follow-up after gynaecological cancer treatment

Vivek Nama  1 , Andy Nordin, Andrew Bryant
Affiliations

Patient-reported outcome measures for follow-up after gynaecological cancer treatment

Vivek Nama et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Gynaecologic cancer treatment is known to have the potential for a major impact on quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is an umbrella term that covers a range of potential types of measurement but is used specifically to refer to self reports by the patient of their health and well-being. Use of QoL and cancer-specific questionnaires as alternatives to follow-up may have immense psychological benefit to the patient and cost benefit to the healthcare system.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of PROMs as an alternative to routine follow-up of women after treatment for gynaecological cancers to identify recurrences, affect overall survival and assess psychological benefit.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to November 2012. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of review articles.

Selection criteria: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs with concurrent comparison groups (of adequate quality that used statistical adjustment for baseline case mix using multivariable analyses) that compared PROMs or QoL questionnaires versus traditional follow-up with multiple visits to the hospital in women after treatment for gynaecological cancers. Studies that involved women completing PROMs at intervals and submitting results for assessment by their cancer care team or structured interviews of women during their follow-up were included in the analysis.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We found no studies and therefore analysed no data.

Main results: The search strategy identified 2524 unique references, of which all were excluded.

Authors' conclusions: We found no evidence to make an informed decision about PROMs for follow-up after gynaecological cancer. Ideally, RCTs which are multicentre or multinational or both, or well-designed non-randomised studies are needed that use multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline imbalances, to compare follow-up strategies and improve current knowledge.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None

Update of

References

References to studies excluded from this review

Ashing Giwa 2010 {published data only}
    1. Ashing-Giwa KT, Lim JW, Tang J. Surviving cervical cancer: does health-related quality of life influence survival? Gynecologic Oncology 2010;118(1):35-42. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Chase 2010 {published data only}
    1. Chase DM, Watanabe T, Monk B J. Assessement and significance of quality of life in women with gynecologic cancer. Future Oncology 2010;6(8):1279-887. - PubMed
Greimel 2002 {published data only}
    1. Greimel E, Thiel L, Peintinger F, Cegnar I, Pongratz E. Prospective assessment of quality of life of female cancer patients. Gynecologic Oncology 2002;85(1):140-147. - PubMed
Greimel 2003 {published data only}
    1. Greimel E, Bottomley A, Cull A, Waldenstron A C, Arraras J, Chauvenet L, et al. An international field study of the reliability and validity of a disease-specific questionnaire module (the QLQ-OV28) in assessing the quality of life of patients with ovarian cancer. European Journal of Cancer 2003;39(10):1402-8. - PubMed
Greimel 2011 {published data only}
    1. Greimel E, Daghofer F, Petru E. Prospective assessment of quality of life in long-term ovarian cancer survivors. International Journal of Cancer 2011;128(12):3005-11. - PubMed
Gupta 2008 {published data only}
    1. Gupta D, Grutsch JF, Lis CG. Patient satisfaction with quality of life as a prognostic indicator in ovarian cancer patients treated in an integrative treatment setting. Journal of the Society of Integrative Oncology 2008;6(3):98-104. - PubMed
Jordan 2012 {published data only}
    1. Jordan S, Osann K, Wenzel L, Arroyo A, Tewari K, Chase D. Can patient-reported symptom assessment be useful in a gynecologic oncology office practice? A prospective study using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) in a diverse population. In: Gynecologic Oncology; Conference: 2012 Annual Meeting of the Western Association of Gynecologic Oncologists, WAGO 2012 Huntington Beach, CA United States. 2012.
Klee 1997 {published data only}
    1. Klee M, Groenvold M, Machin D. Quality of life of Danish women: population-based norms of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research 1997;6(1):27-34. - PubMed
Lerman 2012 {published data only}
    1. Lerman R, Jarski R, Rea H, Gellish R, Vicini F. Improving symptoms and quality of life of female cancer survivors: A randomized controlled study. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2012;19(2):373-8. - PubMed
Seow 2011 {published data only}
    1. Seow H, Barbera L, Sutradhar R, Howell D, Dudgeon D, Atzema C, et al. Trajectory of performance status and symptom scores for patients with cancer during the last six months of life. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2011;29(9):1151-8. - PubMed
Vistad 2011 {published data only}
    1. Vistad I, Moy BW, Salvesen HB, Liavaag AH. Follow-up routines in gynecological cancer - time for a change? Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2011.;90(7):707-18. - PubMed

Additional references

American Cancer Society 2010
    1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Projected To Become Leading Cause Of Death Worldwide In 2010. ScienceDaily; www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2008/12/081209111516.htm (accessed 30 June 2013).
Deeks 2001
    1. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, editors(s). Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. 2nd edition. London: BMJ Publication Group, 2001.
Dersimonian 1986
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7(3):177-88. - PubMed
GLOBOCAN 2008
    1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2008: Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. globocan.iarc.fr 2010;2.0.
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Kew 2006
    1. Kew FM, Cruickshank DJ. Routine follow-up after treatment for a gynecological cancer: a survey of practice. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2006;15(1):380-4. - PubMed
Kew 2009
    1. Kew FM, Galaal K, Maderville H. Patients' views of follow-up after treatment for gynaecological cancer. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2009;29(2):135-42. - PubMed
Lydon 2009
    1. Lydon A, Beavery K, Newbery C, Wray J. Routine follow-up after treatment for ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom (UK): patient and health professional views. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 2009;13(5):336-43. - PubMed
Parmar 1998
    1. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(24):2815-34. - PubMed
RevMan 2012 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.

References to other published versions of this review

Nama 2013
    1. Nama V, Nordin A, Bryant A. Patient-Reported outcome measures for follow-up after gynaecological cancer treatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 1. Art. No: CD010299. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010299] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources