Economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after curative treatment for breast cancer: results of an RCT.

BACKGROUND: An economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN 74071417) investigating the cost-effectiveness of nurse-led telephone follow-up instead of hospital visits, and of a short educational group programme (EGP) in the first year after breast cancer treatment. METHOD: This economic evaluation (n = 299) compared the one-year costs and the effects of four follow-up strategies: (1) hospital follow-up; (2) nurse-led telephone follow-up; (3) hospital follow-up plus EGP; and (4) nurse-led telephone follow-up plus EGP. Costs were measured using cost diaries and hospital registrations. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured using the EQ-5D. Outcomes were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Hospital follow-up plus EGP yielded most QALYs (0.776), but also incurred the highest mean annual costs (€4914). The ICER of this strategy versus the next best alternative, nurse-led telephone follow-up plus EGP (0.772 QALYs and €3971), amounted to €235.750/QALY. Hospital and telephone follow-up without EGP both incurred higher costs and less QALYs than telephone follow-up plus EGP and were judged inferior. Hospital follow-up plus EGP was not considered cost-effective, therefore, telephone follow-up plus EGP was the preferred strategy. The probability of telephone follow-up plus EGP being cost-effective ranged from 49% to 62% for different QALY threshold values. Secondary and sensitivity analyses showed that results were robust. CONCLUSION: Nurse-led telephone follow-up plus EGP seems an appropriate and cost-effective alternative to hospital follow-up for breast cancer patients during their first year after treatment.

Nurse-led telephone follow-up and an educational group programme after breast cancer treatment: results of a 2 × 2 randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether frequent hospital follow-up in the first year after breast cancer treatment might partly be replaced by nurse-led telephone follow-up without deteriorating health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and whether a short educational group programme (EGP) would enhance HRQoL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a 2×2 factorial design was performed among 320 breast cancer patients who were treated with curative intent. Participants were randomised to follow-up care as usual (3-monthly outpatient clinic visits), nurse-led telephone follow-up, or the former strategies combined with an educational group programme. The primary outcome for both interventions was HRQoL, measured by EORTC QLQ-C30. Secondary outcomes were role and emotional functioning and feelings of control and anxiety. RESULTS: Data of 299 patients were available for evaluation. There was no significant difference in HRQoL between nurse-led telephone and hospital follow-up at 12 months after treatment (p = 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference: -1.93-4.64) and neither between follow-up with or without EGP (p = 0.86; 95% CI for difference: -3.59-3.00). Furthermore, no differences between the intervention groups and their corresponding control groups were found in role and emotional functioning, and feelings of control and anxiety (all p-values > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Replacement of most hospital follow-up visits in the first year after breast cancer treatment by nurse-led telephone follow-up does not impede patient outcomes. Hence, nurse-led telephone follow-up seems an appropriate way to reduce clinic visits and represents an accepted alternative strategy. An EGP does not unequivocally affect positive HRQoL outcomes.

Cancer patients' view on rehabilitation and quality of life: a programme audit.

An existing 12-week cancer rehabilitation group programme, combining physical training and psychosocial sessions, was recently tested in a quantitative longitudinal cohort study (n = 658) among adult patients who have problems coping with cancer. Results showed improvements in all quality of life domains. The objective of the present study was to explore patients' perspectives on how and to what extent the rehabilitation programme had met their needs in order to optimize the programme. Patients who participated in the programme no longer than 5 years ago were interviewed in three focus groups (n = 23). Participants saw rehabilitation as provided by the programme as an important steppingstone in their ongoing recovery process and identified the integrated physical training, psychosocial sessions and patient-to-patient contacts as a powerful and supportive combination. Recommendations for improvements to the programme mainly concerned the psychosocial module. Information needs varied strongly among participants and, in this respect, it was hard to satisfy all of them. Participants suggested that the programme should focus more on developing skills to cope with cancer, its consequences and emerging problems after rehabilitation. In conclusion, participants valued the group-based multi-modal cancer rehabilitation programme and recommended to focus more on developing coping skills.