Follow-up practice in endometrial cancer and the association with patient and hospital characteristics: A study from the population-based PROFILES registry

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.02.018Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To examine to what extent endometrial cancer survivors experienced follow-up according to the Dutch national guidelines, and to identify associations between follow-up care consumption and socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL), and worry (including fear of recurrence). Patients' preferences with the received follow-up care were also evaluated.

Methods

All patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer FIGO stages I–II between 1999 and 2007, registered in the Eindhoven Cancer Registry (ECR), received a questionnaire including patients' follow-up care consumption, preferences regarding the follow-up schedule, HRQL (SF36 and EORTC-QLQ-EN24), and worry (IOCv2).

Results

742 (77%) endometrial cancer survivors returned a completed questionnaire. Overall, 19% reported receiving more follow-up visits than recommended by the guidelines. Overconsumption of follow-up care was lowest in follow-up year 1 (13%), and highest in follow-up years 6–10 (27%). In addition, overconsumption was associated with having a comorbid condition, a higher score on the worry subscale, and hospital of treatment. Most patients (83%) felt comfortable with their follow-up schedule. Patients in follow-up years 6–10 felt least comfortable (69%).

Conclusion

Follow-up frequency was higher than recommended in a large group of endometrial cancer survivors, mainly in follow-up years 6–10. Moreover, a substantial variation in follow-up practice was observed between the different hospitals. Despite limited evidence to support the use of intensive follow-up schedules, the current study suggests that intensive routine follow-up after endometrial cancer continues to be standard practice. Possibly, patients should be better informed in order to reduce overconsumption and worry.

Highlights

► 19% of endometrial cancer survivors received more follow-up than recommended by the guidelines, mainly in follow-up years 6–10 (27%). ► Although most survivors felt comfortable with their follow-up schedule, survivors in follow-up years 6–10 more often preferred no follow-up. ► Factors associated with more overconsumption of follow-up care were follow-up year, hospital of treatment, comorbidity, and worry.

Introduction

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in Western countries, with an incidence of 15–25 per 100,000 women annually [1], [2]. The majority of these women (i.e., more than 75%) are diagnosed at an early stage (i.e., FIGO stages I and II), and have an excellent prognosis, as indicated by the overall 5-year survival rate of 80% in the US and The Netherlands [1], [2], [3].

After primary treatment, women with endometrial cancer are monitored in routine follow-up based on periodic visits for several years after treatment. The primary rationale for follow-up is to timely identify disease recurrence, in order to improve survival and/or quality of life [4], [5]. In addition, follow-up may provide psychosocial support [6] and can be reassuring for patients [7]. However, intensive follow-up schedules require considerable financial resources [6], [8], [9], and can increase patients' anxiety [7].

The frequency of follow-up visits of endometrial cancer survivors has been a continuing area of discussion in the past years, due to limited evidence whether intensive follow-up schedules are more or less beneficial than non-intensive follow-up schedules [4], [10]. The recurrence rate for early stage endometrial cancer is relatively low, ranging from 3 to 17%, depending on primary and adjuvant treatment [4], [11], [12]. Most recurrences (i.e., 70%) occur within three years after diagnosis [10], [13], and in patients that present with new symptoms between scheduled visits [4], [11], [14], [15]. Therefore, it has been suggested that follow-up has limited clinical benefit [8], [16], and that the number of follow-up visits of endometrial cancer survivors, particularly those diagnosed at an early stage, might be decreased while the quality of care remains adequate [17], [18].

Guidelines for follow-up of endometrial cancer lack evidence-based knowledge and vary in recommended follow-up strategies [14]. Previous studies have shown large variations in follow-up practice in endometrial cancer between different countries and institutions [5], [10], [14], [16], [19], [20]. However, these studies have not investigated which factors may be associated with follow-up consumption.

Understanding the factors associated with consumption of follow-up care might help health care providers to better organize the follow-up of endometrial cancer survivors. The aim of the present study was therefore to examine to what extent endometrial cancer survivors experienced follow-up according to the Dutch guidelines, and to identify associations between consumption of follow-up care and socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. As previous research has shown that treatment can have long-term consequences on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) of endometrial cancer survivors [21], and that patients with heightened anxiety levels may request more long-term follow-up [22], the aim of the present study was also to identify associations between consumption of follow-up care and HRQL and worry. In addition, patients' preferences regarding the follow-up were evaluated.

Section snippets

Setting and participants

A cross-sectional study was performed among 1091 endometrial cancer survivors registered within the Eindhoven cancer registry (ECR) of the Comprehensive Cancer Center South (CCCS). The ECR records data on all patients newly diagnosed with cancer in the southern part of the Netherlands, an area with 10 hospitals serving 2.3 million inhabitants. The ECR was used to select patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer between January 1st 1999 and October 1st 2007 in 10 hospitals. All individuals (age

Study population

Of the 965 endometrial cancer survivors who were sent a questionnaire, 742 (77%) returned a completed questionnaire. Of the patients who returned a completed questionnaire, 46 (6%) patients had received less than 1 year follow-up, 96 (13%) had an additional malignancy, and 23 (3%) patients had recurrent disease and were therefore excluded (Fig. 1). Respondents were younger than non-respondents (p < 0.001), with a mean age of 66.7 years (range 26.8-84.6). Details of the characteristics of

Discussion

In the present study, most endometrial cancer survivors reported to have received follow-up according to the national guidelines. However, there was substantial variation in follow-up practice, with both over- and underconsumption. A large group of survivors, particularly in follow-up years 6–10, reported to have received follow-up care more frequently than recommended. On the other hand, a substantial percentage of survivors in follow-up year 1 indicated that they received less follow-up

Authors' contributions

In collaboration with the OOG-CCCS (Organization Oncologic Gynecology of the Comprehensive Cancer Center South), LP, CV, DB, JP, and RK contributed to the concept and design of the study. LP, CV, DB, JP, ML, and RK contributed to the acquisition of the data. KN analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors provided input into revisions of the manuscript and have approved the final manuscript.

Role of funding source

Data collection and data dissemination for this study were funded by the Comprehensive Cancer Center South, Eindhoven, The Netherlands and an investment grant of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO #480-08-009), The Hague, The Netherlands. Dr. Lonneke van de Poll-Franse is supported by a Cancer Research Award from the Dutch Cancer Society (#UVT-2009-4349). The funding sources had no involvement in the study design, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, the

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all patients and their doctors for their participation in the study. Special thanks go to Dr. M. van Bommel, who was willing to function as an independent advisor and to answer questions of patients. In addition, we want to thank the following hospitals for their cooperation: Amphia Hospital, Breda; Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven; Elkerliek Hospital, Helmond and Deurne; Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's Hertogenbosch; Maxima Medical Center, Eindhoven and Veldhoven; Sint Anna

References (41)

  • E. Greimel et al.

    Patients' view of routine follow-up after gynecological cancer treatment

    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol

    (2011)
  • J.M. Jones et al.

    Experiences of care delivery: endometrial cancer survivors at end of treatment

    Gynecol Oncol

    (2012)
  • Netherlands Cancer Registry
  • M.F. Fung et al.

    Follow-up after primary therapy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review

    Gynecol Oncol

    (2006)
  • L. Fuso et al.

    Variation in gynecological oncology follow-up practice: attributable to cancer centers or to patient characteristics? A Piedmont regional Oncology Network Study

    Tumori

    (2011)
  • O.O. Agboola et al.

    Costs and benefits of routine follow-up after curative treatment for endometrial cancer

    Can Med Assoc J

    (1997)
  • F.M. Kew et al.

    Patients' views of follow-up after treatment for gynaecological cancer

    J Obstet Gynaecol

    (2009)
  • Dutch Health Council

    Follow-up in oncology

    Identify objectives, substantiate actions

    (2007)
  • J. Menczer

    Endometrial carcinoma. Is routine intensive periodic follow-up of value?

    Eur J Gynaecol Oncol

    (2000)
  • Cited by (46)

    • Silibinin inhibits endometrial carcinoma via blocking pathways of STAT3 activation and SREBP1-mediated lipid accumulation

      2019, Life Sciences
      Citation Excerpt :

      Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is one of the most common malignant tumours in the female reproductive system. In recent years, the incidence and mortality of EC have increased, and the age of onset has become younger, seriously harming women's health [1,2]. Despite routine surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, conservative treatments of early-stage EC with the purpose to preserve fertility are limited.

    • Decreased expression of TFAP2B in endometrial cancer predicts poor prognosis: A study based on TCGA data

      2018, Gynecologic Oncology
      Citation Excerpt :

      About 11,350 women will die from cancers of the uterine body [2]. The five-year survival rate for endometrial adenocarcinoma following appropriate treatment is 80% [3]. Most women, over 70%, have FIGO stage I cancer, which has the best prognosis, however, Stage III and especially Stage IV cancers has a worse prognosis [4].

    • Analysis of endometrial carcinoma in young women at a high-volume cancer center

      2017, International Journal of Surgery
      Citation Excerpt :

      Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most frequent malignant tumor of the female reproductive system [1].

    • An integrative transcriptomic analysis reveals bisphenol A exposure-induced dysregulation of microRNA expression in human endometrial cells

      2017, Toxicology in Vitro
      Citation Excerpt :

      Endometrial cancer (EC), one common malignant carcinoma of gynecologic diseases, is the second most prevalent cancer among women following breast cancer. With over 140,000 cases occurring annually worldwide, it has become the fourth most common cancer in women (Nicolaije et al., 2013). The ascended incidence of EC is relevant to increasing age, body mass index and obesity or excessive estrogen exposure (Oldenburg et al., 2013).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text