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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Jun;16(3):415-427.
doi: 10.1007/s40258-018-0378-6.

Cost-Consequence Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial of Hospital Versus Telephone Follow-Up after Treatment for Endometrial Cancer

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cost-Consequence Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial of Hospital Versus Telephone Follow-Up after Treatment for Endometrial Cancer

Padraig Dixon et al. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Regular outpatient follow-up programmes are usually offered to patients following treatment for gynaecological and other cancers. Despite the substantial resources involved in providing these programmes, there is evidence that routine follow-up programmes do not affect survival or the likelihood of detecting recurrence and may not meet patient needs. Alternative follow-up modalities may offer the same outcomes at lower cost. We examined the costs of using telephone-based routine follow-up of women treated for endometrial cancer undertaken by specialist gynaecology oncology nurses in comparison to routine hospital-based follow-up.

Methods: The ENDCAT trial randomised 259 women at five centres in the north west of England with a known diagnosis of Stage I endometrial cancer who had completed primary treatment on a 1:1 basis to receive either standard hospital outpatient follow-up or a telephone follow-up intervention administered by specialist nurses. A cost-consequence analysis was undertaken in which we compared costs to the health system and to individuals with the trial's co-primary outcomes of psychological morbidity and participant satisfaction with information received.

Results: Psychological morbidity, psychosocial needs, patient satisfaction and quality of life did not differ between arms. Patients randomised to telephone follow-up underwent more and longer consultations. There was no difference in total health service mean per patient costs at 6 months (mean difference £8, 95% percentile confidence interval: - £147 to £141) or 12 months (mean difference: - £77, 95% percentile confidence interval: - £334 to £154). Estimated return journey costs per patient for hospital consultations were £11.47. Productivity costs were approximately twice as high under hospital follow-up.

Conclusion: Telephone follow-up was estimated to be cost-neutral for the NHS and may free up clinic time for other patients. There was some evidence that telephone follow-up may be more efficient for patients and wider society, and is not associated with additional psychological morbidity, lower patient satisfaction or reduced quality of life.

Trial registration: ISRCTN: 75220876, prospectively registered 28 October 2011.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Availability of Data and Materials

The research team will consider requests for sharing of patient level data. Consent for data sharing was not obtained but the presented data are anonymised and risk of identification is low. Requests should be made to Professor Kinta Beaver.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Randomised patients analysed by arm

References

    1. Maddams J, Utley M, Moller H. Projections of cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom, 2010–2040. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(7):1195–1202. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.366. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maher J, McConnell H. New pathways of care for cancer survivors: adding the numbers. Br J Cancer. 2011;8(105 Suppl 1):S5–S10. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.417. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lajer H, Jensen MB, Kilsmark J, Albaek J, Svane D, Mirza MR, et al. The value of gynecologic cancer follow-up: evidence-based ignorance? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20(8):1307–1320. - PubMed
    1. Jefford M, Rowland J, Grunfeld E, Richards M, Maher J, Glaser A. Implementing improved post-treatment care for cancer survivors in England, with reflections from Australia, Canada and the USA. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(1):14–20. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.554. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pagh A, Vedtofte T, Lynggaard CD, Rubek N, Lonka M, Johansen J, et al. The value of routine follow-up after treatment for head and neck cancer. A National Survey from DAHANCA. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(2):277–284. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2012.741324. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources